get_results_by_opponent_tier

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description explains that tiers are derived from live standings and imposes constraints on tier_size. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 clearly structured with a front-loaded purpose, a concise explanation of tiers, and a bullet-like Args list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, making it efficient without being bloated.

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 has an output schema, so return values don't need to be in the description. The description covers the core logic, parameter constraints, and usage rationale. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could mention edge cases like league size smaller than 2*tier_size.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully compensates: it defines team_id as ESPN numeric ID and tier_size with default, minimum, and constraint relative to league size. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific action: 'Get a team's W-L-T splits against current top-tier, middle, and bottom-tier teams.' This distinctively identifies the tool's resource (team results by opponent tier) and differentiates it from siblings like get_standings or get_strength_of_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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'how does this team do against the top of the table?' and explains the tier derivation from live standings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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