get_efficiency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the season parameter is optional, defaults to the current season, and notes data availability limitations (earliest 1999, possession length from 2010). This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention side effects or error behavior, which are less relevant for a read-only stats query.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with a clear summary then providing parameter details and return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional, well-documented parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and data availability. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 input schema has zero property descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'season' parameter: optional, defaults to current season, with earliest available year and separate availability for possession length. This gives complete semantic meaning for the only parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Get efficiency and tempo stats for all teams' with a specific verb and resource, and further details offensive/defensive efficiency, tempo, and possession length. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ratings and get_four_factors, which focus on different metrics.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving efficiency and tempo data for all teams, making it easy to decide when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'for all teams' scope is clear enough to avoid confusion with per-team or conference-specific tools.

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