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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload (names, record, standing summary, venue), but it adds nothing about freshness, error behavior, or missing-data handling for an open-world 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?

A single telegraphic fragment with zero waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to read as a sentence, which keeps it just under the top mark.

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?

For a simple single-entity read with a fully documented 3-param schema, this is minimally adequate, and the listed return fields compensate partially for the absent output schema. An agent still gets no hint about what happens with an unknown team_id or how standings/record are scoped.

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 100%, and the league parameter even embeds a full monitored-league list with a pointer to list_leagues, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The fragment names a specific resource ('One team') and enumerates what comes back (names, record, standing summary, venue), which separates it from list_teams and get_team_roster. It stops short of explicitly saying it retrieves a single team by id, but the singular 'One team' plus the id parameter makes the intent unambiguous.

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 is given. It never says to prefer this over get_team_roster for roster data or list_teams for discovery, and the only routing hint ('Team id from list_teams') lives in the schema, not the description.

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