team_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing beyond an implied read. It says nothing about what stats are returned, whether historical seasons are supported, rate limits, or whether the team must belong to the league. A 2 reflects only the weak read-only implication of the word 'statistics'.

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 single fragment is maximally concise and front-loaded with the resource, with zero filler. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is scored in other dimensions, so this stays at a middle score.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum describe what comes back or how IDs relate across league/team/season. Instead it provides a seven-word fragment, leaving the agent guessing about return shape and the meaning of a 'season' lookup.

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 100%, with all three integer parameters (team, league, season) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to.

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 phrase 'Team statistics for a league season' names the resource (team stats) and its scope (a specific league season), which distinguishes it from player_stats and standings. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and never says what 'statistics' actually includes, leaving the purpose only partially resolved.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no hint about how it relates to siblings like standings, player_stats, or search_teams. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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