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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare the safe read-only, open-world profile, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the sport/league consistency constraint, which is useful, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or response shape beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what it returns followed by the two sibling routing rules. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, routing, and a key constraint; it is complete for calling the tool correctly, missing only optional behavioral 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (team, sport, league) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that team can be an id or abbreviation, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (ESPN team) plus the exact fields returned — identity, colors, record, standing summary. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting espn_teams for discovery and espn_team_roster for player rows.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use espn_teams to discover teams in a league and espn_team_roster for player rows. It also states the constraint that league must belong to the selected sport, so the correct call path is unambiguous.

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