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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds real operational context beyond them: metered/account-dependent access and delay, one bounded request with no background polling or automatic retry, and an exclusion for affiliate 27. These are genuinely useful traits not derivable from the structured fields.

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 leading sentence is fused into the next clause without punctuation ('Get teams for a sport Read-only Product data...'), making the front-loaded purpose hard to parse. Several trailing statements ('No wagers, account changes or guarantee of returns') read as boilerplate that dilute the core content.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the behavioral envelope an agent needs (metering, bounded single request, affiliate exclusion, empty-result caveat). The only meaningful gap is the lack of v1-vs-v2 disambiguation.

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?

The only parameter (sportID) already carries a rich schema description enumerating common sport IDs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing specific about the sportID format or accepted values, matching the 3 baseline for a well-documented single parameter.

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 ('Get teams for a sport'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like v1GetConferencesBySport or v1GetDivisionsBySport. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical v2GetTeamsBySport, so an agent must infer the version difference.

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?

Implies context with 'Product data or price calculation' and tells the caller to 'Use returned canonical IDs' downstream, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes between v1 and v2 alternatives. Caveats like 'never infer coverage from an empty result' are warnings, not usage selection criteria.

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