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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-open-world, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results carry ids, country, venue and leagues (relevant because there is no output schema), but says nothing about limits, permissions, or partial-match behavior.

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 with the action, the lookup key, and the returned fields front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating return fields, but it omits any explanation of limit/default paging, the language switch, or the league_id filter's role. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 five parameters are documented in the schema itself (lang, name, limit, sport, league_id). The description only echoes the name parameter, adding no syntax, format, or defaulting information beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Find teams') plus the identifying input ('by name') and the payload ('ids, country, venue and leagues'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from get_team's singular lookup by being a name-based search, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that sport must come from list_sports), and no indication of when to prefer get_team or find_leagues instead. The agent is left to infer the search use case entirely from 'by name'.

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