get_strength_of_schedule

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

Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds behavioral substance by explaining the calculation (average points-per-game of opponents faced) and the return structure (per-opponent breakdown). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: a one-sentence summary, followed by a clear explanation of the returned value and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how to specify the team. The output schema handles any structural details beyond the description.

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 provides only a field name 'team_id' with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining it is an 'ESPN numeric team ID' and giving a concrete example ('e.g. "18418" for Atlanta United FC'), which is essential for correct invocation.

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 function: 'Get a team's strength of schedule based on opponents already faced.' It specifies the resource (team), the verb (get), and the exact metric (opponents' current points-per-game). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_schedule or get_adjusted_points_per_game.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful early in the season for "who has played the tougher schedule so far?" questions.' This implies when the tool is most appropriate, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or 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.