throw_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that 'season' means calendar-year grouping, but says nothing about time range, pagination, or returned granularity.

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 tight sentence with the subject (metrics) and grouping behavior front-loaded. No filler, though the parenthetical about calendar year could be folded more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. However, for a trends tool with no date-range parameter and two undocumented filter parameters, the description leaves open how the trend window and filtering actually work.

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 3 parameters. The description clarifies group_by values ('month' or 'season', with season meaning calendar year), which is genuinely additive, but throw_type and primary_type are left completely unexplained, so a third of the parameters remain opaque.

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 names the concrete metrics (TechDisc speed, distance, spin) and the temporal framing ("over time"), plus the grouping dimension. This distinguishes it from throw_stats (aggregate) and scoring_trends (different metric family), though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as throw_stats or scoring_trends. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name and metrics listed.

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