power_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It explains the net calculation and that lower defense is better, but it fails to mention the 'top' parameter that may limit results, contradicting the 'all teams' claim. It also doesn't describe the output format or whether the data is updated only before games.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a concise formula note. There is no wasted wording.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide complete context. It covers the rating meaning but omits the effect of the 'top' parameter, default behavior, and response structure. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is notably 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?

The schema has one parameter 'top' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'top' means, whether it limits the number of returned teams, or how it affects the 'all teams' claim. This is a critical gap that the description needed to fill.

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 that the tool provides current model power ratings for all teams, including the EPA/play units and the net formula. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_form or predict_game, which target different data.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like model_report or predict_game. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, exclusions, or when another tool would be preferable.

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