getLeagueShotsStats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the data format (cumulative totals, not per-game averages), calculation methods (percentages derived from totals), output format (dictionary with detailed team statistics), and data representation (percentages as decimals). It doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness or error handling, but covers the core behavior well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, key behavioral notes, return format, and detailed notes. Each sentence adds value - none are redundant. While somewhat detailed due to the output specification, the information is necessary given the lack of output schema. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (statistical data with calculations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context. It explains the data nature (cumulative vs. averages), calculation methodology, output structure, and data representation. The main gap is the lack of information about data sources or update frequency, but for a read-only statistical tool, the description is quite comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even without parameter information in the description. The description correctly states there are no parameters needed ('This endpoint provides...' implies no filtering parameters), which aligns perfectly with the empty schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get league-wide shooting statistics (field goals and free throws) for all teams.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('league-wide shooting statistics'), and scope ('for all teams'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getTeamDetails (team-specific) or getAveragesLeagueRankings (averages-focused).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for understanding overall team shooting efficiency across the season.' It distinguishes itself by emphasizing cumulative totals rather than averages, which helps differentiate from tools like getAverageStats. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the general distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.