get_goalie_stats

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'Costs 5 credits' and mentions advanced metrics, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with usage context, no wasted words. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: usage, return details, advanced metrics and cost.

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 full parameter schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and output schema present, the description completes the picture by covering use case, sort options, filters, and cost.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by naming sort metrics (save%, GAA, GSAX, wins) and mentioning games played filter, aligning with the enums and min_games parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'returns leaderboard sorted by save%, GAA, GSAX, or wins' and specifies 'Use when ranking goalies or comparing goalie performance.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_player_stats.

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 says when to use ('ranking goalies or comparing goalie performance'), but does not mention when not to use or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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