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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by framing the data as a 'complete' directory (no pagination implied) and by noting the league shortcut must be 'discovered' (i.e., obtained from openligadb_leagues first). Return format is handled by the output schema.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the routing advice for the returned teamIds. No filler. The second sentence is slightly listy but every element names a real sibling. Front-loading is good.

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?

Two required parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations are all in place, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, the discovery prerequisite, and next steps adequately. Could mention whether the directory spans all teams or just those with recorded matches, but the essentials are 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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds little beyond implying the two-parameter scoping. Its note that the shortcut is 'discovered' slightly reinforces the schema's 'exact league shortcut from openligadb_leagues' hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 ('List the complete team directory') scoped to a single league shortcut and season. This is clearly distinct from the sibling match-oriented tools (matches_by_team, team_pair_matches). It stops just short of explicitly contrasting the directory with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides clear downstream context: 'Use the returned teamId values with openligadb_team_pair_matches, openligadb_matches_by_team_id, or the next/last team-match tools.' This routes the agent to the follow-on tools once teamIds are in hand. It does not state an exclusion case (e.g., 'if you already have a teamId, skip this'), so it is a 4 not a 5.

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