get_team_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the offense/defense toggle, season default, earliest available year, and JSON array return type. But it omits potential caveats like data freshness, error behavior, or whether any filtering applies, which are relevant for a stats-retrieval tool.

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-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. Each line provides useful information, though there is minor redundancy in mentioning 'Returns detailed team stats' and then a separate Returns block.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not enumerate return fields. It covers all parameters and their semantics, plus the defensive/offensive selection. It could add edge cases like invalid season values, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 zero description coverage, so the description entirely compensates. It clearly explains the 'defense' boolean behavior and the 'season' parameter including format, default, and minimum year. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'team statistics', and gives examples of metrics (shooting percentages, blocks, steals, assists). However, the word 'miscellaneous' makes it sound like a catch-all, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_conference_offense or get_player_stats beyond the 'team' scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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