get_team_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose read-only semantics ("Show", "Lists") and that results are per-remaining-week with opponent record and points-for. It omits error behavior for fuzzy/unmatched team names and any ambiguity handling, which matters for a fuzzy lookup.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a short arg note and a return explanation. Slightly redundant to restate the return content after the opening line, but nothing is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the single parameter's semantics are covered. Complete enough to call correctly; only the fuzzy-match failure/disambiguation case is left unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: team_name accepts a team name OR an owner name and matching is fuzzy. That is meaningful semantics an agent could not get from the bare string schema, though no format example or disambiguation guidance is given.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and resource (a team's remaining schedule) plus the value-add dimension (opponent strength). It is distinguishable from get_player_schedule by the team-level scope, but the description never explicitly contrasts with siblings such as get_team_analysis or compare_teams.

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 closing clause "so you can gauge schedule difficulty" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the tool for forward-looking schedule evaluation rather than past results.

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