get_shooting_data

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or result format. The only behavioral hint is that it accepts player name or ID, which is parameter-level info.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the resource name. However, the first sentence is too brief and could be integrated with the second for better flow. Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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?

Given 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains, the difference between splits and chart, or the role of season and game_id. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in 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 description adds meaning for two of four parameters: it explains player accepts name or ID and data_type can be 'splits' or 'chart'. However, season and game_id are not mentioned, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 returns 'shooting data' and mentions the data_type parameter (splits or chart), which differentiates it from siblings like get_player_stats that likely return all stats. However, it doesn't specify what specific shooting metrics are included, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_player_stats or get_box_score. The description only mentions what the tool accepts, not the intended use case or context.

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