referee_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the time range (2015+), the metrics included, and the special behavior for an empty name. It doesn't describe the output format or sorting order, but for a simple stats tool with one parameter, this is adequate.

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 one concise sentence that packs valuable information: the topic, time range, specific metrics, and parameter behavior. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the subject.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its data scope, and how to request all refs. It leaves minor gaps like sorting order and output format, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 only one parameter with no description, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'name' parameter can be empty to return all refs ranked, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the expected name format (full name, last name, case sensitivity), so it's not perfect.

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 tool as providing head referee tendencies from 2015 onward, including specific metrics like penalties/game and home penalty bias. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on referees rather than teams, players, or markets. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', so it's not a full 5.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need referee stats) and gives parameter guidance ('Empty name = all refs ranked'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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