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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the game/team_id coupling that triggers a not-found response, and the scope of the returned payload (roster join dates, upcoming matches, USD earnings). No rate-limit or freshness caveats are given, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and ending with the required inputs and error case. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place as selection signal; only the duplicated teams[].id reference slightly overlaps the schema.

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 two-param lookup with full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the remaining unknowns: where the id comes from, what a mismatch does, and roughly what the payload contains. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both params and their enum-like game list. The description still adds value by restating team_id provenance in the tool-level text and, more importantly, by explaining the cross-parameter rule that a team belonging to another game yields not found — a semantic the schema does not express.

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 and resource ("Returns one GosuGamers esports team") and enumerates exactly what comes back — Elo and rankings, W/D/L and win rate, streak, earnings, socials, roster with join dates, upcoming matches. That field list makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like gosugamers_team_results, gosugamers_tournament_participants or gosugamers_rankings.

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?

Gives the concrete precondition — you need game plus team_id sourced from gosugamers_matches, gosugamers_results or gosugamers_match — and names the failure mode ("a team of another game returns not found"). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over gosugamers_team_results or how to obtain a team_id if no match is in hand, but the context is clear.

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