get_adjusted_points_per_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the exact calculation (`avg_opponent_ppg / league_average_ppg`) and the interpretation of results relative to raw PPG, which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The formula explanation is compact and directly supports understanding, with no filler. The Args section is minimal and efficiently captures the only parameter.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it returns, how the adjustment works, and how to interpret the result. No major information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has one `team_id` property with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates with 'ESPN numeric team ID,' which clarifies the expected value format and source. However, it is brief and could include more detail about constraints or data requirements.

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 'Get a team's raw points-per-game alongside an opponent-quality-adjusted PPG,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_strength_of_schedule by focusing on points-per-game adjustment rather than schedule strength alone.

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 clearly explains what the tool does and the adjustment formula, giving context for when it would be useful. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the unique purpose provides implicit guidance, and the sibling tools serve distinctly different goals.

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