kenpom_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling for invalid dates, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler words, and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence is earned and adds value.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description is brief and does not cover expected return format, date range restrictions, or error behavior. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% coverage with the single parameter 'archive_date' described as 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves historical ratings from a past date, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource as 'historical ratings'. It implies historical analysis, distinguishing it from current-ratings tools like kenpom_ratings.

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 explicitly states 'Use this for backtesting or historical analysis', providing clear contextual usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or which alternative sibling tool to use for current ratings, which would improve differentiation.

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