get_calibration_report

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes the data source ('prospectively recorded outcomes'), which adds context, but does not specify side effects (e.g., read-only), output format, or any potential rate limits. The 'Report' verb implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, and free of fluff. It precisely states the tool's function without redundant details.

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 tool is simple (one optional param, output schema exists), so the description could suffice, but it lacks usage context and does not clarify what 'prospectively recorded outcomes' means or how to interpret the metrics. Overall adequate but missing guidance for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 sole parameter 'league_id' is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema provides name, type, nullable, and default, but the description adds no meaning about how league_id affects the report (e.g., filtering scoping). The parameter name is self-explanatory but the lack of description force the agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Brier/absolute-error metrics'), clearly stating the tool's output. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sync or analysis tools, as calibration metrics are unique among them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, exclusions, or related tools. Usage is only implied by the description, leaving the agent to infer when a calibration report is needed.

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