get_scouting_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format (JSON mapping names to {value, rank} objects) and parameter behavior (season default, conference_only flag). It doesn't discuss errors or rate limits, but for a read-only data getter, this is sufficient.

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 well-organized with a summary line, a clear Args section, and a Returns section. It is concise, with every sentence serving a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity: purpose, parameters, and return format are all covered thoroughly. An output schema exists, but the description reinforces it with additional detail, making it self-sufficient.

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, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples, defaults, and conditional behavior. Team examples ('BYU', 'Duke'), season default, and conference_only semantics are explicitly detailed.

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 gets a detailed scouting report for a team with 37 stats and ranks, covering offensive and defensive categories. This distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like get_four_factors or get_efficiency by offering a comprehensive, all-in-one report.

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 when a broad overview of team stats is needed, but it never explicitly mentions alternatives or when to prefer this over the more specialized sibling tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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