kenpom_ratings

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'current' but the schema requires a season parameter, which is slightly misleading. It does not disclose response format, pagination, or data freshness beyond 'current'. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the action and result, the second provides context. 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the structure of returned data (e.g., JSON keys, ordering). Lacks information on error handling or limits. Incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and no schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that it returns data 'for all teams' and implies the team parameter filters, but does not explain value formats or behavior when omitted. Minimal added value.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'efficiency ratings (AdjOE, AdjDE, AdjEM)' and identifies itself as core KenPom ranking data. It distinguishes from siblings vaguely but could be more explicit about how it differs from tools like kenpom_top_teams or kenpom_predictions.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as kenpom_fourfactors or kenpom_predictions. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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