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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload fields (ids, country, venue, leagues), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about matching semantics, empty results, or that limit/pagination exists.

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 zero filler; the verb, resource, key, and result fields all earn their 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?

For a simple read-only search tool with fully described parameters, the description covers purpose and the shape of the returned data, compensating for the absent output schema. Only the lack of guidance against sibling lookups (get_team, find_leagues) keeps it from being complete.

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%: every parameter (lang, name, limit, sport, league_id) is documented in the schema, including defaults and the list_sports pointer. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already 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 ('Find teams') plus the matching key ('by name') and the payload returned (ids, country, venue, leagues), which distinguishes it from the single-entity get_team. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from 'by name'/'teams' rather than stated.

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 name' implies a partial-name search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like get_team or find_leagues. Usage is only implied.

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