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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the non-obvious operational trait: upstream pages cap at 1000 rows and pagination is driven by a next_page cursor. It does not mention rate limits or empty-result behavior, but the pagination disclosure is the key missing-from-annotations detail.

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 tight sentences: return shape first, pagination protocol second, downstream routing last. No filler, and the most important scoping fact (pagination) is front and center.

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, so return values need not be spelled out further, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a paginated list endpoint, everything an agent needs to call it and continue correctly is present.

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 schema already says 'optional zero-based page index; up to 1000 teams per page'. The description reinforces the zero-based semantics and adds the loop-termination rule tied to next_page, which is meaning the schema does not convey.

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 a zero-based page of OpenDota teams') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, tags, logos, ratings, win/loss). It also names the sibling tools that consume a team_id, so an agent can place it in the workflow immediately.

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 concrete procedural guidance: start at page 0, follow next_page while present, and hand off team_id to opendota_team or opendota_team_matches. It names alternatives but stops short of any explicit 'don't use this when...' exclusion, so it lands just under a 5.

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