pl_team_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context: the all-time scope, the count of metrics (~130), the return structure with example keys, and the auth requirement. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: one line for the main purpose, one for return format, and one for auth. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 compensates by providing a return structure example, the approximate number of metrics, and the all-time scope. It also covers authentication. The lack of a full metric list is acceptable for tool selection purposes, making the description sufficiently complete.

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% and both cid and tid have descriptive entries. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema, such as noting they are required and part of the URL path. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 returns team aggregate stats with all-time competition scope and ~130 Opta metrics. It provides a concrete return example, making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_team_form or pl_team_leaderboard by specifying 'aggregate stats' and 'all-time'.

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 retrieving historical team statistics but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as pl_team_form or pl_standings. It states that no authentication is needed and that both parameters are required, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools.

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