get_four_factors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the four factors and the season parameter (earliest 1999, optional, default current) and return format (JSON array). However, it doesn't explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), error behavior, or data freshness, which are relevant for a stats API. Adequate but not rich.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening line, a bullet list of the Four Factors, and separate Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, no fluff, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the only parameter, and the statistical meaning. It also notes the all-teams scope, which is a key limitation. No significant gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the season parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining it is optional, defaults to the current season, accepts a string like '2024', and notes the earliest available year (1999). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool retrieves 'Four Factors stats for all teams' and enumerates the specific stats (eFG%, TO%, OR%, FTRate), which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like get_efficiency or get_team_stats. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit, leaving no ambiguity.

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: it's for team-level four factors across all teams, no filtering. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the scope ('all teams') and the listing of stats imply its use case. It doesn't say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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