get_team_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: "High-payload call — use sparingly" indicating performance considerations, and explains response structure (every event, match, award, robot). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope; second provides usage guidance and alternatives. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned (every event, match, award, robot) and warns about payload size. For a tool with one simple input parameter and straightforward aggregated output, this is completely adequate.

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 a clear description of team_key. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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?

Exactly states the verb "Retrieve" and resource "team's full FRC competition history" with scope defined as "every event, every match, every award, and every robot." Explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming narrower alternatives: get_team_events_all, get_team_awards_all, or year-scoped variants.

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?

Clearly states when to use "when a complete archive is needed (e.g., generating a team retrospective)" and when not to use "For narrower queries prefer get_team_events_all, get_team_awards_all, or year-scoped variants." Provides explicit alternatives and context (high-payload call, use sparingly).

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