get_adjusted_points_per_game

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the exact calculation (scaling by opponent/league average) and how to interpret values above/below raw PPG. It does not disclose edge cases or error handling, but the core behavior is well described.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a compact formula and interpretation. The Args section is minimal and to the point, with no unnecessary verbosity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (raw and adjusted PPG) and how to interpret the adjusted value. It provides all necessary context for typical usage without requiring further elaboration.

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 single parameter team_id is described as an 'ESPN numeric team ID,' adding clarity beyond the schema's generic 'Team Id' label. This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description, though it could note that the ID is a string representation of a number.

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 gets a team's raw and adjusted points-per-game, with a specific formula and interpretation. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_teams or get_standings by focusing on the adjusted 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 context is clear: use this when you need a team's scoring output adjusted for opponent quality. The formula explanation implicitly guides usage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for raw stats or schedule strength. This is a minor gap but the intended use is well conveyed.

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