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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior when the ID is invalid, auth requirements, or response shape beyond 'squad, stats'. It also ignores the notification_message/language fallback behavior entirely.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key and returned content come first. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list is the only thing giving it substance.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, this is minimally adequate: purpose and returned entities are clear. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose return structure and failure behavior, which it does not.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the ID format example and the notification_message semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed team information'), and specifies the content returned (squad, stats) and the lookup key (team ID). It implicitly separates itself from get_team_image by promising squad/stats data, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is only inferable.

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?

The phrase 'by team ID' implies this tool follows a search step, but the description never says when to use this versus search, get_team_image, or get_player, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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