pl_team_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns many metrics and is likely a read operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or performance considerations. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a return format example. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 complexity of ~130 metrics and no output schema, the description lacks details about the return structure beyond a brief example. It also fails to explain the parameters, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

Input schema has two parameters (cid, tid) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., competition ID, team ID). The agent is left to infer from naming, which is insufficient.

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: 'Team aggregate stats (all-time in the competition) — ~130 Opta metrics.' It specifies the action (get stats), the resource (team), and the scope (all-time in competition), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_team and pl_team_form that focus on other aspects.

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 obtaining team stats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of prerequisites or context for selection among similar team-related tools.

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