get_stadium

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, but it omits important traits such as the effect of the 'raw' and 'language' parameters, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens when the stadium is not found. It only lists a few returned fields without depth.

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 extremely concise, comprising a single sentence. While it lacks depth, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema and three parameters with one undocumented, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameter interplay (e.g., raw returns untouched payload) or provide complete return value details, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 67%, leaving the 'idStadium' parameter undefined. The description lists three fields (name, city, capacity) that map to the response but does not elaborate on any parameter beyond the schema, such as the 'raw' boolean or 'language' code.

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 identifies the action (Get), resource (stadium/venue), and key identifier (idStadium), and specifies the returned fields (name, city, capacity). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team or get_season.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description only implies usage when an idStadium is available, lacking context-specific direction.

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