get_strength_of_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the calculation uses 'opponents already faced' in 'completed matches' and returns 'average current points-per-game' plus a 'per-opponent breakdown,' which is not evident from annotations alone.

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 concise and well-structured: the first line states the core purpose, the second explains the return value, the third gives a usage scenario, and the final line documents the argument. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids extraneous detail or repetition of the schema.

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 description provides sufficient context for a one-parameter read-only tool: it explains the computation logic, the return format (average + breakdown), and an example use case. Since the output schema exists, it need not detail return fields, but it does enough to fully orient an agent selecting this tool among siblings.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type (team_id as string), with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining what team_id means ('ESPN numeric team ID') and giving a concrete example ('e.g. "18418" for Atlanta United FC'), making the parameter's format and usage clear.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a team's strength of schedule' and clearly defines the computation basis: 'based on opponents already faced.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_team_schedule by focusing on strength of schedule rather than listing fixtures, and clarifies the output: average points-per-game plus a per-opponent breakdown.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Useful early in the season for "who has played the tougher schedule so far?" questions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the framing implies this tool is for schedule-difficulty analysis rather than raw schedule or match detail retrieval.

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