cfbd_team_season_stats

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: the response is in long format, the shape is from unverified vendor docs, auth requires a key, and users should inspect the actual payload. These warnings help set expectations about reliability.

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 labeled sections (Returns, Example, Auth) and a warning note. It is slightly long due to multiple caveats, but each section earns its place and the key facts are 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return format, which it does via the shape example and the long-format clarification. The auth requirement, example, and reliability caveat round out the context needed for effective use.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (year, team, conference). The description adds an example call ({'year': 2024}) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Season totals per team across every tracked stat category,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also highlights the long-format return shape, distinguishing it from typical per-team aggregation tools and many siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied through the example call and mention of optional filters (team, conference), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cfbd_games or cfbd_rankings. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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