compare_league_trajectories

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It describes return format: side-by-side histories, trends, total change, growth trajectories. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or data recency, but the description sufficiently indicates a non-destructive comparison operation.

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?

Four sentences succinctly convey purpose, output, and usage context. No redundant or wasteful phrasing; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main function.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output highlights, and usage suggestions. Could mention any prerequisites or data range limitation, but overall sufficient for a comparison 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 covers both parameters (league_id_1 and league_id_2) with descriptions mentioning UUIDs, achieving 100% coverage. Description does not add extra parameter detail beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states specific verb+resource: 'Head-to-head valuation trajectory comparison between two leagues.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'compare_leagues' by specifying 'valuation trajectory' and 'side-by-side score histories', making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use this when a user asks "how does League A compare to League B over time?" or wants to evaluate two partnership candidates.' This clearly indicates when to use, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios.

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