scout_report_data

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only specifies the output representation is structured/non-markdown; it discloses nothing about whether this is read-only, requires permissions, hits network, caches data, or paginates results.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently puts the core distinguishing fact first, though the piece - but the brevity does it no harm. It earns its place, even though more substance is needed.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete: it never states the return value shape, how team/lookback affect results, or when to choose it over scout_report. An agent would have to guess or the schema though.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description names neither parameter. 'Team' and 'lookback' are left underspecified: no unit, no format, no explanation of the default 8. The description provides no value for param understanding.

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?

Names the resource (scouting report) and specifies a differentiator: 'structured (non-markdown) version'. This distinguishes it from the sibling scout_report tool. However, it relies on an implied verb rather than stating what it does directly.

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 phrase 'non-markdown version' hints that the markdown sibling exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions like 'use this when you need JSON data'.

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