get_team_rpi

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. Description adds case-insensitivity for team name, partial matching, and tie_weight variations. No contradictions.

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 summary followed by a clear, bullet-like argument list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is already documented. Input parameters are fully described. No gaps given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 3 required, one with default).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: event_id (example), flight_id (source), team (case-insensitive, partial match), tie_weight (default and alternative).

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?

Explicitly states verb 'Compute', resource 'one team's RPI', and outcome 'component breakdown'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling `get_rpi` by focusing on a single team.

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?

Provides detailed parameter semantics with examples and defaults. However, does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over `get_rpi` or other siblings, nor when not to use it.

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