get_adjusted_points_per_game

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the exact formula for adjusted PPG ('avg_opponent_ppg / league_average_ppg') and the interpretive meaning of values above raw PPG. This is transparent about how the tool computes and what the result signifies.

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 opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a brief formula explanation and an Args section. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the calculation, interpretation, and the single parameter. The only minor gap is not explaining where to obtain a valid team_id, but this is likely covered by the get_teams sibling tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only metric tool.

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 schema only defines team_id as a required string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by documenting the parameter: 'team_id: ESPN numeric team ID.' This adds clarity about the format and source, though it doesn't specify how to obtain the ID or that it should match team IDs from get_teams. Still, it is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 tool's specific function: 'Get a team's raw points-per-game alongside an opponent-quality-adjusted PPG.' This uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource (team's PPG) and the distinctive adjustment (opponent-quality). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_strength_of_schedule and get_team by focusing on the adjusted PPG metric.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need raw and opponent-adjusted PPG) and provides context for interpreting the adjusted value (higher than raw indicates a tougher schedule). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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