stat_leaders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses valid stat values, the season format, and the limit cap. However, it does not mention ordering (e.g., descending by the chosen stat), tie handling, or whether the results are per-game averages, though output schema may cover return structure.

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 front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by concise parameter constraints. Every line earns its place with no redundant wording or restating of the tool name.

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 lack of return-value detail is acceptable. Parameter coverage is strong and the tool's core behavior is clear. The main gap is absence of sibling differentiation and behavioral details like sorting or tie-breaking, but overall the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has no property descriptions, so the description is essential. It explains the accepted stat enum, the exact season format, and that limit is capped at 50, covering all three parameters. It could be slightly clearer that limit means the number of top leaders returned, but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 per-game statistical leaders for a season, which is a specific verb+resource. It also enumerates the supported stat categories, adding precision. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the function is distinct enough from player lookups, rosters, and box scores.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need per-game statistical leaders for a season. It gives useful input constraints like stat values, season format, and limit cap, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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