get_strength_of_schedule

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

While annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, the description adds substantive behavioral details: it returns the average current points-per-game and a per-opponent breakdown, and clarifies it only considers completed matches. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose coming first, followed by return behavior, usage context, and argument documentation. Every sentence provides value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 covers the computation method, when to use it, and the parameter format. The output schema handles return structure details, so the description needs no further expansion.

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 zero description for team_id, but the description compensates fully by explaining it is an ESPN numeric team ID and providing an example. This makes the parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 strength of schedule based on opponents already faced' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_team_schedule by focusing on schedule difficulty rather than the schedule itself.

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 gives clear context, noting it is 'useful early in the season' for comparing who has played a tougher schedule. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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