seriea_team_stats

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return structure (teams, stats, pagination), auth requirement (none), and the category limitation. It does not contradict annotations and gives a clear picture of output shape.

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 compact and information-dense: the first sentence covers purpose and content, the second explains category behavior, and the third provides return format and auth. No fluff or repetition.

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 fully specifies the return structure including nested fields and pagination, plus auth and category restrictions. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond a cross-reference to the player category rule. This meets the high-coverage baseline without adding significant new meaning.

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 precisely states the tool's function: a 'Team stat leaderboard for a season' with all 20 teams and full Opta stats. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like seriea_standings, seriea_teams, and seriea_players, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is for a season, requires seasonId (from seriea_seasons), and the category rule is explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'when not to use', but the tool name and content make the use case evident.

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