Get User Teamcenter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read of user scoring data but does not state permissions, whether arbitrary users can be queried, how defaults for day and league_id are resolved, or what the response contains beyond a brief parenthetical.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text, but it is too terse for the tool's complexity. Its brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than through efficient communication.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should fill significant gaps. It only hints that the result relates to points per player for a matchday, leaving the roles of day, user_id, and league_id unexplained and the tool's usage context incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It does not clarify what user_id refers to, what day controls, or what happens when league_id is omitted, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 user-scoped resource ('team center of a user') and hints at its content ('points per player for a matchday'), but 'team center' is ambiguous and could mean squad, lineup, or scoring summary. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_my_squad, get_my_lineup, or get_league_ranking.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_my_squad, get_my_lineup, or get_league_ranking. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this endpoint are stated.

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