faceit_getTeamStats

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the endpoint and parameters but does not disclose behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. However, as a read-only GET endpoint, it is inherently non-destructive.

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 concise with a clear purpose followed by usage guidelines and parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the endpoint line adds marginal value.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states returns 'Team stats' but lacks detail on the structure or fields. It covers the essential context but could be more informative.

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%, but the description provides basic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'The id of the team' and 'A game on FACEIT'). These add meaning beyond the schema but lack specifics like format or examples.

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 'Retrieve statistics of a team' and specifies it is for aggregated stats in a specific game, distinguishing from tournament-specific or match-specific stats. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (team's aggregated stats in a specific game) and what not to use it for (tournament-specific or match-specific stats). It does not list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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