league_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the endpoint and scope but does not state how fresh or cached the data is, what the response format looks like, whether authentication is needed, or how results are ordered and paginated.

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 concise sentences with no filler: the main purpose is stated first, and the parameter definition is compactly delivered in the second. Every word adds necessary information.

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 one-parameter stats endpoint, this is minimally viable: it names the resource, source, and section choices. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves out response format, ordering behavior, and usage caveats that an agent would need for robust invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining the only parameter's allowed values ('batting|pitching|fielding'), which the schema does not provide. It fully enumerates the choices, though it leaves the precise semantics of each section implicit.

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 states a clear resource ('league-wide season leaderboard') and source ('federation's stats endpoint'), with 'section' defining the sub-category. It uses 'League-wide' to signal scope, which helps distinguish it from team-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives like team_batting or team_pitching.

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 'League-wide' qualifier implies this tool is for league-level stats rather than team-specific or projection tools, giving some contextual guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool over sibling alternatives or provides exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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