team_get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: authentication and team membership are required. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, or response format. This is a reasonable amount of transparency but not comprehensive.

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. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose with a clear verb and specifics; the second adds a necessary prerequisite. There is no redundancy or wasted 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the main purpose and a key requirement, but it does not clarify whether the returned statistics apply only to the specified team or if other teams' stats are accessible. There is no mention of return format or possible errors, which would be expected given the absence of an output schema.

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 full coverage of the single parameter (team_id) with its own description 'The ID of the team.' The tool description does not add further parameter details, but since coverage is 100%, the schema already handles parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Get team statistics including placement and current score.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team statistics'), and names key data fields (placement, current score), distinguishing it from sibling tools like team_get_services or stats_get_rounds.

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 an implied usage context (when you need team statistics), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The requirement 'Requires authentication and team membership' is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance, so no explicit comparison to sibling tools is offered.

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