nhl_goalie_leaders

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return structure (e.g., {wins:[...], savePctg:[...]}), providing an example call, and noting that no authentication is needed. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool returns and any access requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a return structure and example without excessive verbosity. Each section earns its place, though it is somewhat longer than the minimum viable description.

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 simplicity and the presence of a 100% covered schema, annotations, and a detailed return structure in the description, the tool is well-specified. The description compensates for the absence of an output schema by outlining the response fields. It covers purpose, example, and auth, making it complete for a read-only leaderboard tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example ({"season_or_current": "current", "limit": 10}) adds a practical usage illustration, but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema fully documents each parameter.

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: 'League leaders among goalies — wins, save percentage, goals-against average and shutouts.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on goalies distinguishes it from sibling tools like nhl_skater_leaders.

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: if you need goalie league leaders, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., nhl_skater_leaders) or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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