get_arenas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behavior: returns arena data for a season, defaults to current season, earliest available is 2010, and outputs a JSON array. It does not mention potential rate limits or authorization, but for a simple read-only data retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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?

The description is compact and well-organized, with an initial summary sentence followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a simple array return, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter details, constraints (earliest year), and return format. The output schema further clarifies the structure, so no critical information is missing.

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?

The single 'season' parameter is thoroughly described with a format example, default behavior, and minimum year, far exceeding the schema which only says 'anyOf string/null'. This gives the agent complete guidance on how to specify the parameter correctly.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving arena information for all teams and lists specific data types (arena names, capacities, attendance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ratings or get_team_stats, which focus on other statistics.

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 description implies usage for arena-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and first sentence.

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