get_team_match

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

The description mentions 'EPA contributions and alliance info', which gives some insight into what the response contains. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool can return empty results. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but only partially addresses it.

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, using one sentence to state the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the key information (what it does and key output elements). No unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying 'EPA contributions and alliance info' as return data. However, it doesn't indicate whether statistics include scores, rankings, or other details. For a tool with only two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks completeness on output specifics.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for 'team' (with examples) and 'match' (with pattern example). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the score is baseline 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 tool retrieves a team's statistics for a specific match, including EPA contributions and alliance info. The verb 'get' and nouns 'team', 'match', 'statistics' specify the resource and scope, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_team_matches' which likely returns all matches for a team.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_team_matches' or 'get_match'. No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on name and description.

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