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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by stating 'no auth required' and naming the data source (TheSportsDB, free public database). It also summarizes return contents, though not exhaustively. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then return fields, then follow-up usage and data source. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Given an output schema exists (return values are presumably documented there), the description provides a high-level summary of returned fields and critical follow-up usage. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for a simple lookup with one parameter, this is complete enough. The auth-free note and sports coverage are useful context.

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 100% and the sole parameter 'name' has a descriptive schema entry with examples and partial-name support. The tool description only restates that it searches by name, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('sports team'), and scope ('across all sports'), listing examples. It also differentiates from related tools by naming events_past/events_next for follow-up and implies player search is separate. The purpose is 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?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool (to find a team by name) and explicitly directs the agent to use the returned league_id with events_past/events_next for match results. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for players), but the team focus is clear. This is strong guidance with a minor exclusion gap.

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