get_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (JSON array) and lists the specific data fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or data update behavior, though the tool is inherently read-only.

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 well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, a field list, and a straightforward Args/Returns layout. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present (per context signals), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return type, and data fields, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to understand correct usage.

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 parameter 'season' is thoroughly explained in the description: optional, format example ('2024'), default behavior (current season), and earliest available year (1999). The schema only lists type/default, so the description adds significant value beyond it.

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 'Get Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings for all teams' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on overall team ratings and explicitly listing the returned fields (rank, team, conference, record, efficiency 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_efficiency or get_team_stats. It implies a broad overview use case but lacks any 'use this instead of...' or edge-case recommendations.

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