kenpom_pointdist

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what data is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is aggregated or per-game.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and quickly provides specific details about the data returned.

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?

No output schema is present, so description should compensate by describing return structure. It mentions metrics but not how they are organized (e.g., separate for offense/defense, team-level). For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 100%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on parameter usage or valid values.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb 'Get', resource 'point distribution data', and details the metrics (percentage of points from FTs, 2-pointers, 3-pointers for offense and defense). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing uniquely on point distribution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kenpom_fourfactors or kenpom_ratings. The description implies usage for point distribution queries but does not provide when-not-to-use or context-specific recommendations.

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