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 usefully discloses the shape of the payload and that squad inclusion is optional, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens on an invalid team_id.

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 that packs the field inventory and the optional squad expansion without filler. Minor drag from list items like 'logo link' that are arguably noise rather than decision-relevant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the return payload, and it does so reasonably well for a read-only lookup with fully documented parameters. The remaining gap is the unresolved adjacency with get_team_briefing, which an agent must disambiguate unaided.

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 four parameters (lang, sport, squad, team_id) are already documented with formats and constraints. The description only restates the squad option, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, so 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 resource (team profile) and enumerates the returned fields (country, founded, venue, leagues, logo link), plus the optional squad expansion. This makes the tool's output recognizable at a glance, but it offers no differentiation from the sibling get_team_briefing, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_teams (to obtain a team_id) or get_team_briefing. The only routing hint ('team_id from find_teams or a match') lives in the schema, not the description.

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