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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered without the description. The description adds that results are narrative story categories rather than stats or records, which is useful, but it is silent on what happens when neither team_id nor team_name is supplied and on whether all teams are returned in that case.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical list doing useful compact work. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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 no explanation, but the tool has 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage with none required. The description leaves the core ambiguity — how the team is identified and what an unfiltered call returns — entirely unresolved, which is not adequate for a tool of this shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only implicitly enumerates the story_type values via the parenthetical list. It says nothing about the team_id vs team_name relationship (both nullable, no required params), which is the critical selection question, and nothing about limit behavior.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('Get team stories') plus a parenthetical naming the kinds of stories returned (hometown, history, rivalry, achievement), which tells an agent what the payload contains. It does not distinguish itself from narrative-adjacent siblings such as get_rivalries or get_team, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it instead of get_team, get_rivalries, or get_football_team; usage is only inferable from the name.

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