get_event_insights

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by detailing the separation into phases, specific metrics (per-task averages, scoring trends, bonus rates), and warning that field structure varies per game year. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

No output schema, but description sufficiently explains return values: per-task averages, scoring trends, bonus rates, and notes that structure varies per year. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is complete.

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?

Input schema has one parameter with a comprehensive description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Retrieve', the resource 'aggregated game-specific statistics', and the scope 'for an event, separated into qualification and playoff phases.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_oprs or get_event_predictions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_event_oprs or get_event_predictions). The description implies usage for game-specific aggregated statistics but does not mention scenarios to avoid.

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