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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('retrieves') and specifies the output concept (formation, frequent lineup), but does not disclose edge cases, return format, or behavior when no data exists. Since it is a read tool, the lack of mutation warnings is acceptable, but additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, resource, and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unrelated details.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the inputs, the action, and the expected return concept. However, it does not mention potential data availability limitations or the exact composition of the 'standard formation' and 'starting lineup' (e.g., whether substitutes are included), which are minor gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema descriptions for teamId and seasonId are generic ('The unique numeric ID.'), providing no semantic meaning. The tool description compensates by clarifying that teamId refers to a team and seasonId to a season, mapping the parameters to their real-world roles. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('standard formation and most frequent starting lineup') scoped to 'a team within a specific season'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_match_squads or get_season_team_fixtures.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as get_match_squads or get_team_last_x, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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