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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the non-obvious detail that name matching is fuzzy, but says nothing about multiple matches, ranking, or ambiguity resolution. With strong annotation coverage, this is a reasonable but modest addition.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately short, though the same brevity leaves the noted gaps unaddressed.

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 needn't be described, and the read-only/idempotent behavior is covered by annotations. Still missing are the meaning of 'limit' and how fuzzy-match ambiguity (zero vs many results) is handled, which matter for correct invocation of a resolution tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies that 'query' accepts an id or a fuzzy name, but never mentions the 'limit' parameter or what it controls, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented. That is a real gap given zero schema descriptions.

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 ('Resolve a basketball team') and the two input modes (id or fuzzy name), which separates it from the football variants in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_team or search_teams, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Mentioning 'id or fuzzy name' implies the tool is for lookup when the identifier is known or partial, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_teams or get_team, and no statement of when not to use it.

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