get_shot_chart

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral caveats: data availability starting in 2007, provisional zone labels, and the 500-row cap on raw coordinates. It also warns that zone coding is upstream's own and points to a data-quality resource. This goes well beyond basic descriptions and provides essential context for the agent.

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 short but information-dense. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides a key data caveat, and the Args subsection cleanly maps to parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, data limitations, parameter semantics, and response behavior. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description completes the picture without redundancy.

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 0%, but the description compensates with a dedicated Args section that explains every parameter. It gives a concrete example for season ('E2025'), tells the agent to source person_code from search_players and team_code from search_teams, and explains include_raw's effect and its 500-row cap. This fully resolves any ambiguity in the 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?

The description opens with 'Shot-zone breakdown, optionally with raw x/y coordinates,' which clearly identifies the tool's output as shot-zone data with an optional raw coordinate mode. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_player_stats and get_team_stats by focusing specifically on shot zones. The purpose is specific and 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 usage context: it notes that shot data exists only from 2007 onward and that earlier seasons have boxscores but no coordinates, guiding when not to use the tool. It also explains how to obtain person_code and team_code from search_players and search_teams, which aids integration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct when-to-use versus alternatives comparison, so it stops short of a 5.

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