get_team_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. The description indicates the tool returns statistics (EPA, rank, match record) but gives no details on caching, data freshness, or error conditions. For a read-only tool that aggregates data, 3 is average.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and data. It is front-loaded with the key action. A slight reduction because it could be even more compact without losing clarity.

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 tool has 2 clearly defined parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview. It covers the key return fields (EPA, rank, match record), though details like scope (single team) are implied by parameters. More information about data structure would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (team number, event key). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'team's statistics at a specific event', and lists the data included (EPA, rank, match record). This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools that retrieve other data (e.g., get_team is for team info, get_event for event info). Score 4 because it could more explicitly contrast with siblings or mention the specific context.

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 implies usage for fetching team stats at an event, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team_match or get_team_events. No conditions or exclusions are stated, so the agent must infer based on tool names.

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