get_results_by_opponent_tier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that tiers derive from live standings and the tier_size constraint, which is not in the schema or annotations. No contradiction found.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, an explanatory paragraph, and an Args list. Every sentence contributes value—no fluff—and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. The description covers all necessary context: purpose, tier logic, parameter constraints, and the live standings dependency. It is complete for a read-only reporting tool with only 2 parameters.

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 fully compensates with an Args section explaining both team_id and tier_size, including the default of 5 and the constraint 2*tier_size <= league size. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get a team's W-L-T splits against current top-tier, middle, and bottom-tier teams.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_team_schedule or get_standings by focusing on opponent tier splits.

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 a use case ('how does this team do against the top of the table?') and contrasts with manual scanning, implying when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a complementary tool.

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