get_team_heroes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals what data is returned (games, wins, win rates) but hides behavioral details such as sorting, pagination, rate limits, or whether the response includes only current roster players. The mutation/read intent is implied but not stated.

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?

A single, compact sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, though it is a sentence fragment and could benefit from a verb like 'Gets' for grammatical completeness.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return format, ordering, or any limitations (e.g., date range, team roster scope). The rich schema helps with parameters but the overall call behavior remains underexplained.

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 documents both parameters (team_id and language) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'pro team' reinforces team_id semantics but adds no new meaning about language, defaults, or value formats that the schema doesn't already provide.

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 states a specific verb (plays) and resource (pro team's heroes) and conveys that it returns hero statistics for a team, distinguishing it from player- or hero-centric tools. It is clear but does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with them, so it misses full differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_team_matches or get_hero_stats. The description implies a use case (team hero analysis) but provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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