nbl_stat_leaders

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

The description discloses the return shape ({type, count, data:[...]}), explicitly states auth is not needed, and clarifies the ID source. These are behavioral details beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already declare. It does not contradict the annotations and provides a safe, read-only operation context.

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 tight and well-structured: a clear first sentence defines the purpose, followed by the key ID source caveat, return shape, a concrete example, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical usage 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description provides a return shape example and explains all parameters well. It covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to identify the season, how to paginate, and what the output looks like. It could mention behavior on invalid seasonId or empty results, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that seasonId comes from nbl_seasons (data[].id) and must not be the year. It also gives a real example for sort (-points_average) and limit (limit=-1 for all), making the parameter semantics clearer and more actionable.

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 function: retrieving season statistical leaders (points, rebounds, assists, etc. averages) per player for a single season. It specifies the resource (season leaders) and distinguishes from siblings like nbl_player_stats (per-player game stats) and nbl_team_stats (team stats) by emphasizing per-player averages and season-level aggregation.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to use the tool: pass the season UUID from nbl_seasons, NOT the year, and use limit to cap rows. It provides a concrete example with a real seasonId and sort parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context about the correct seasonId source is a clear usage guideline that adds value beyond the schema.

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