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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., return fields). With rich annotations, the description adds minimal value.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core functionality and output. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 list tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. It does not mention pagination or limits, but the open world hint and tool nature imply all teams are returned.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'league_id' parameter's meaning, format, or source. The schema only shows a type and example. The description fails to add semantic context for the single parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'teams', the scope 'by league_id', and the return fields (id, name, badge, country). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_team' (single team) and 'search_teams' (search).

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 for listing teams by league, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. While straightforward, it lacks guidance on edge cases or when to prefer this over 'search_teams' or team-specific tools.

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