get_coach_rotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it explains rotation_style is a relative tercile, coaches with <10 games get insufficient_data, minute_concentration is a Herfindahl index, and data is keyed to the coach. This fully discloses return semantics and edge cases.

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?

Well-structured with a clear lead sentence, justification paragraph, and an Args list. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence earns its place by conveying important context or semantics.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description goes beyond by explaining the meaning of key output fields and edge cases. It covers use case, interpretation, and parameter details, making it fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining season format, team_code as an optional club code from search_teams, and coach_name as an optional partial name. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool reports how a coach distributes minutes, and frames it as a way to judge a player's minutes ceiling. This distinguishes it from sibling stats tools by focusing on coach-level rotation patterns.

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?

Explicitly tells the user to use it to judge a player's minutes ceiling and explains why rotation depth matters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for team-based stats, but the coach-vs-team distinction is clearly implied.

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