balldontlie_nba_season_averages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds critical behavioral caveats: the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, the payload should be inspected before trusting field names, and authentication requires a personal BALLDONTLIE_API_KEY. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 multi-paragraph but every section earns its place: purpose, return shape, critical unverified-shape note, example, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides an approximate return shape, an example input, and auth info, making it adequately complete for a read-only stats endpoint. The explicit caveat that the shape is unverified appropriately manages expectations given the lack of live verification.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description provides a concrete example ('season': 2023, 'player_ids': ['115']) and reiterates the specificity of player_ids, but does not add substantive semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns season averages for specific NBA players, which differentiates it from sibling tools like balldontlie_nba_teams or balldontlie_nba_games. The lack of an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get') is minor since the noun phrase strongly implies a retrieval operation.

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 implies usage for targeted player queries via 'specific NBA players,' and the schema reinforces this by stating the endpoint 'will not return a whole league.' However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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