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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and data-source reach are covered. The description usefully adds that results are paginated and that volume can be very large in college football, which affects calling strategy, but it says nothing about ordering, total counts, or auth needs.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the scale caveat parenthesized. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical mixes two ideas (pagination and division spread) briefly.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the agent gets the keys (sport, league), pagination and volume awareness, which is adequate. It does not describe what a returned team record contains or how ordering works, so completeness is only mid-tier.

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 75%: sport and league are well documented (league includes the enumerated slugs and an escape hatch, 'Call list_leagues if unsure'), limit is documented, but page has no schema description. The description only contributes the pagination framing, not per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description names the resource and scope: teams belonging to a league, with pagination as the delivery mode. It is clear and specific, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_team (single team) or get_team_roster, leaving sibling differentiation to the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the pagination note and the '800+ teams' scale hint that callers should page through results for large leagues. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer this over get_team/get_team_roster, so the agent must infer.

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