team_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results, scores, record, point spread and venue are included, but says nothing about season scoping nuances, ordering, or completeness, and an output schema already covers return shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces clarity but keeps it tight.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or parameters. However, given a competitive sibling set of stats tools, it is thin on how this tool is chosen over the alternatives, leaving a guidance gap.

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 100%: the team abbreviation format and the season default-to-current behavior are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource (a team's schedule) and enumerates what it contains: results, scores, record, point spread and venue. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve/get'), but the resource is precise enough to distinguish it from data-centric siblings like player_stats and leaderboard.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among siblings such as situational_stats or player_stats. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.

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