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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about returned fields and a cost signal ('cheapest tool at 1 credit'), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and the key return contents. Every clause carries useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple: two optional filters, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the main use case and return contents, and the schema covers parameter semantics. Additional detail about filter behavior or pagination is not strictly necessary here.

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%, so both optional filters are already well documented in the input schema. The description mentions conference and division as returned fields, but adds no filter syntax or behavioral nuance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('list... all 32 current teams') and enumerates the returned fields: conference, division, colours, logo URLs. It also clarifies team-code format with examples, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_team_stats or get_standings.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('when you need team codes') and notes this is the cheapest tool at 1 credit, which helps with routing decisions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most agent decisions.

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