get_team_year

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It states what data is returned (EPA ratings, win/loss, events), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if there are any side effects, or rate limits. The description is adequate 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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and key outputs. It is concise but could be slightly improved by placing the most critical information (what the tool does) at the start—it does so. There is no wasted text.

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 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a good summary of the return value (statistics components). However, it does not specify the output format or structure, which is acceptable without an output schema. The completeness is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters; it merely repeats the idea of year and team. No extra value is added.

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 year, listing EPA ratings, win/loss record, and event results. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_team (general info), get_team_years (summary vs detailed stats), and get_team_events (just events).

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 explicit when/when-not guidance is given. The description implies use when you need yearly team stats, but does not differentiate when to use this vs. get_team_years (which likely returns a list of years rather than details) or get_team_event for a single event. Context signals show siblings exist, but no exclusions are mentioned.

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