Teams Get Athlete Splits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the returned data (the split categories), but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or pagination on top of what annotations provide.

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 efficient sentence with the tool's purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but earns its place by defining the split taxonomy.

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 output schema, the description helpfully names what split categories are returned, which is the main missing piece for this read-only tool. Coverage is good for calling the tool correctly, though the required athlete_id is undocumented anywhere and no indication of result size or granularity is given.

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 coverage is 75% (sport, league, season documented; athlete_id is bare), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description lists return categories but adds no syntax, format, or semantics for any of the four parameters, so it does not compensate for the athlete_id 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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus a precisely scoped resource (situational split statistics for an athlete), and the parenthetical enumerates the split dimensions returned (home/away, monthly, opponents, win/loss). This distinguishes it from the sibling athlete_stats/gamelog tools by scope, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'situational split statistics' plus the enumerated split types implies the analytical use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer it over teams_get_athlete_stats or teams_get_athlete_gamelog. Usage must be inferred from the sibling set.

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