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

Annotations already declare a safe read operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: summary absence when not fresh, summary_lang fallback behavior, record_complete false meaning the record only covers from record_from, expected_return null meaning unknown and never to guess, matches_missed as a lower bound when incomplete, and honours source disagreements that must both be reported. It also notes feature requirements for facts and injuries. These are exactly the kinds of caveats an agent needs before calling.

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 dense run-on paragraph with nested semicolons and parentheticals, making it hard to scan. The information is relevant, but the structure is poor and not front-loaded into distinct sections, so it fails on readability and organization despite containing useful detail.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers nearly all options, special-case returns for US sports, freshness caveats, and feature requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though the lack of clear organization and any concise return-shape summary keeps it from being fully polished.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the parameter meanings already in the schema (coach, squad, facts, season_stats, transfers, honours, injuries) and adds some useful context such as previous_coach/previous_club for coach and source disagreement handling for honours, but it does not add much per-parameter semantics beyond what the structured 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 clearly identifies the resource as a team profile and enumerates the returned sections (country, founded, venue, leagues, rating, next matches, coach, squad_value). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing broader needs to get_matches and get_team_briefing. The verb is implicit in the tool name, and the dense enumeration makes the core purpose slightly harder to grasp at a glance, but it is unmistakably not a match or league 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?

It names specific alternatives for specific needs: 'more: get_matches with team_id' for additional fixtures, 'fixture congestion: get_team_briefing', and 'more: get_transfers' for transfer history. It does not explicitly state when to use get_team over get_team_briefing as a whole or give broad exclusions, but the routing guidance is concrete and useful.

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