get_team_stats

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that Four Factors are returned for both the team and opponents, and explains how to interpret them (e.g., low tov_pct is good). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor mention any permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by concise additional detail about the Four Factors interpretation and parameter examples. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return structure. It covers parameter semantics, the source of team_code, and interpretability of results. It lacks explicit mention of the read-only safety profile and any prerequisites beyond using search_teams, but these are minor given the nature of a stats retrieval tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining team_code as 'canonical code from search_teams' with examples, and season as optional with an example. This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Team season statistics including offensive/defensive rating and the Four Factors', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_player_stats by focusing on team-level statistics.

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 team-level analysis and provides interpretation guidance for the Four Factors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_player_stats or search_teams. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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