coach_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the content returned but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles invalid names, what data source is used, or any rate limits/edge cases. This is a significant gap for a simple lookup tool.

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—a single comma-separated list. It front-loads 'Head coach career' and every item adds substantive information. However, it reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the structure could be improved with a verb or clearer indication of what the tool returns.

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 the simple input and lack of output schema, the description provides a useful list of data categories but omits critical context such as what the response looks like, how to handle unknown coaches, or the time range/source of the data. It leaves too much to the agent's inference for a tool that could be used in varying contexts.

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 input schema has a single 'name' parameter with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description does not mention the parameter or how to provide the coach's name, forcing the agent to rely on the parameter name alone. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not, it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (head coach career) and the specific data categories (records, playoffs, ATS, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like player_lookup and team_form by focusing on coach-level metrics. However, it lacks an explicit verb, so it reads more like a content summary than an action statement.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose coach_profile over player_lookup or team_form, or any exclusionary context. The intent is only implied by the resource name.

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