Games Get Power Index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the content of the payload (FPI/BPI, efficiency metrics) and says nothing about scoping, season defaults, rate limits, or failure modes, so it contributes little behaviorally.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the surrounding gaps.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does give a brief indication of what is returned (FPI/BPI ratings and efficiency metrics), which partially covers return semantics. However, with 0% parameter coverage it leaves sport/league/season formats unspecified, so it is only partly complete for this 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 description coverage is 0% across all three parameters (sport, league, season), and the description names none of them or their accepted values. It only weakly implies a league-level scope, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('league team power index ratings'), and names the concrete metrics (FPI/BPI, efficiency), so an agent knows it returns power ratings rather than raw standings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling games_get_rankings, keeping it short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives such as games_get_rankings or games_get_standings. Usage can only be inferred from what the data is, with no prerequisites or exclusions offered.

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