cfbd_ratings_elo

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the response shape is from vendor documentation and unverified, requiring the agent to inspect the actual payload before trusting field names. It also discloses the authentication requirement (CFBD_API_KEY). These are valuable caveats.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose, a return shape, a necessary caveat about unverified data, a concrete example, and auth instructions. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the return shape and includes an example, but it does not explain behavior when no filters are provided, how parameters combine, or what each parameter's permitted values are beyond the schema. The unverified shape warning is helpful, but for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, more detail on default behavior and parameter combinations would improve completeness.

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 schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description's example ({"year": 2024}) provides a practical usage illustration, and the return shape hints at the conference and team parameters. It adds some context beyond the schema, but does not fully explain parameter constraints or interactions.

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 identifies the tool as providing Elo ratings filterable by team and week, distinguishing it from sibling rating tools like cfbd_ratings_sp and cfbd_rankings. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'Elo ratings' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cfbd_ratings_sp. The example shows a valid call but does not state when this tool is preferred, what filters are required, or how it differs from similar rating/ranking tools. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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