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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact output contents, the nflverse spelling convention (with examples), and the cost. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations for the returned data.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The primary use case is front-loaded, specifics are given in the second sentence, and the cost note is included without bloat. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with optional filters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells what data to expect, the naming convention, and the cost. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state how the filters combine, but the schema's parameter descriptions already imply that. No critical information is missing.

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% – both parameters (division and conference) have descriptive strings in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameters themselves, but it does imply that without filters all 32 teams are returned. Since the schema already documents the parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra parameter-level nuance.

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 ('list') and a specific resource ('teams'), and enumerates the exact data fields returned (conference, division, colours, logo URLs, team codes). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are about stats, games, players, etc., so an agent can immediately know this is the team-listing tool.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('Use when you need team codes, or all 32 current teams...'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling list contains no other team-listing tool, the usage context is sufficient. The cost hint ('Cheapest tool at 1 credit') adds decision guidance.

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