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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description's added value is the data-scope signal (2026 season, Division I, FBS and FCS subdivisions), which tells the agent what is searchable, but it says nothing about pagination, the limit default, or what happens with combined filters.

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 with no filler; the scope constraint is stated up front. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 not be explained, and the 2026/D-I scope is a useful inclusion. But for a five-filter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition omits how filters combine, matching semantics, and default/max limit behavior — gaps an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% across five parameters (name, limit, state, conference, subdivision), so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails. 'Across FBS and FCS' hints at the subdivision filter and 'Division I' bounds the conference values, but name/state/limit semantics and matching behavior (exact vs partial) are undocumented.

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 ('Search') and resource ('football teams') and narrows the corpus to 2026 NCAA Division I across FBS and FCS. The 'football' qualifier separates it from the generic search_teams sibling, though the description never says so explicitly.

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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as search_teams (non-football) or get_football_team (single-team lookup). Usage is only implied by the data scope (D-I FBS/FCS, 2026), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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