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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: one bounded request with no polling or automatic retry, metered usage tied to the connected account, and affiliate 27 exclusion. The trailing 'no wagers, account changes or guarantee of returns' boilerplate is largely irrelevant to a read-only team lookup.

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?

Opens by restating the title verbatim, then strings together generic policy sentences, several of which (no wagers, no guarantee of returns) are noise for a read-only getter. The tool's actual purpose is buried under boilerplate rather than front-loaded.

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, and the description covers access/metering constraints adequately. It is still missing sibling routing and any explanation of the nested path/teamID structure an agent must supply.

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?

Coverage is low and the schema nests teamID inside a 'path' object, which the description never explains. However, 'Use returned canonical IDs' does add meaning about the expected ID form beyond the schema's bare 'Normalized team ID' note, so this is not a pure zero.

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 a team by ID'), so an agent knows this is a single-entity lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling retrieval tools like v2GetTeamsBySport or v1GetTeamsBySport, which fetch teams collectively.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative for the common case of listing teams by sport. 'Use returned canonical IDs' hints at input expectations but not tool selection. The only operational guidance is the negative warning never to infer coverage from an empty result.

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