team_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what data is returned and the meaning of through_week, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention read-only nature, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 short sentences, efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence lists all output components, the second clarifies the optional parameter. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return values and parameter semantics. It lacks details on return format and error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'through_week' meaning well, but 'team' and 'season' are only described by their names, which are somewhat self-evident but could use more detail (e.g., team name vs. ID, season format).

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 lists the tool's outputs (team record, EPA splits, rest/travel profile, next scheduled game), making its purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though the team-specific scope is implied.

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 like player_lookup or power_ratings. The only usage hint is the explanation of through_week=0, which is more about parameter semantics than tool selection.

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