nhl: Get team stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the current-season scope and sample stat categories, but says nothing about the shape of the response, aggregation level (team totals vs. splits), or whether the data is live or cached.

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 no filler; the resource and scope come first. The trailing 'etc.' slightly weakens precision about what the stat set actually contains.

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?

For a simple, low-complexity read lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap—what exactly a 'stat' covers and in what form—is minor at this complexity level.

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 100%: both team_abbrev (with format example and length bounds) and fields (comma-separated keys) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get current-season stats for an NHL team') and scopes it to the current season, with examples of the stat categories returned. It is clearly distinguishable from nhl_get_standings, nhl_get_team_roster, and nhl_get_team_schedule by resource, though it never explicitly names 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 stated prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as nhl_get_standings for standings or nhl_get_team_roster for rosters. The agent must infer the boundary from the word 'stats' alone.

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