sm_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the function and does not address return format, parameter requirements, limitations, or whether it is read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is evident from the tool name and schema.

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 two concise sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and adding a brief use-case note. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the different modes, the 'include' parameter, or how to combine the various IDs, leaving significant gaps for an agent to know how to 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'include' parameter or how the 'mode' affects other parameters, and the participantId reference merely duplicates the schema's existing description.

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 it retrieves statistics for a participant (team or player) across season/stage/round, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sm_topscorers or sm_predictions, though the focus on participant statistics is fairly distinct.

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 phrase 'Essential for form and performance analysis' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or mentions of alternatives, so it is a clear context without comprehensive usage boundaries.

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