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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the cost signal ('cheapest tool at 1 credit') and the negative scope of historical franchises.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the use condition, then scope, then exclusions and cost. No filler; the only mild redundancy is restating 'list teams' from the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers use case, scope, exclusions, and cost. The one gap is that multi-league support (pwhl, ohl, whl, etc.) is never mentioned, leaving an agent to discover it only from the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with two enums, so the schema fully documents league/conference/division. The description only indirectly implies the NHL default via '32 active NHL teams' and adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, 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 (list) and resource (teams) plus the actual return fields (city, conference, division, arena) and meaningfully distinguishes itself from get_team_stats/get_standings. The only weakness is that it frames the tool as NHL-only ('all 32 active NHL teams') while the schema accepts eight leagues, which slightly narrows the perceived scope.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when you need team abbreviations') and an explicit exclusion ('Excludes historical franchises (ATL, ARI)'). It does not name a sibling alternative, but the use case is unambiguous without one.

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