get-season-schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what data is returned (e.g., game dates, opponents, venues), whether it's paginated, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'full season schedule' includes, the return format, or behavioral considerations. Given the complexity of sports data and many similar sibling tools, more context about what distinguishes this tool would be valuable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'season' and 'team' but provides no additional context about format, constraints, or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('full season schedule for a specific team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-current-schedule' or 'get-date-schedule' by specifying 'season' scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'get-schedule'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get-current-schedule', 'get-date-schedule', 'get-month-schedule', and 'get-schedule', there's no indication of when this season-focused tool is preferred over other schedule retrieval options.

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