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 by structured data. The description adds content-level context by naming the kinds of splits returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the parenthetical scope. No padding, no redundancy.

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?

The safety profile is covered by annotations and there is no output schema to explain, so those gaps are not the description's responsibility. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and a crowded sibling namespace, the description leaves an agent unable to confidently distinguish or correctly parameterize the call.

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 four parameters (sport, league, season, athlete_id). The description mentions 'athlete' but never explains the meaning, format, or expected values of sport, league, season, or athlete_id, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap the schema leaves.

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 gives a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('situational split statistics for an athlete') and enumerates the split categories (home/away, monthly, opponents, win/loss), so the purpose is unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing this from close siblings like teams_get_athlete_stats or teams_get_athlete_gamelog, which an agent selecting between them would need.

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 the many sibling athlete tools (overview, bio, stats, gamelog). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named. Usage must be inferred entirely from the vague phrase 'situational split statistics'.

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