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

The annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the result set covers all seasons of the sport.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are both stated immediately. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 trivial one-param lookup this is close to sufficient, and listing return fields compensates for the missing output schema. It still lacks any note on result size, ordering, or whether the data is season-agnostic, which an agent calling this repeatedly would want to know.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the schema enforces a closed enum of seven leagues, so the valid inputs are self-documenting. The description only implies the parameter via 'in a sport' and adds no semantics about whether the sport value determines the set of conferences/divisions returned.

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 resource and scope: every team in a given sport, plus the fields returned (ids, names, abbreviations, colors, conference, division). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular aura_get_team and the roster-oriented aura_get_team_roster without naming them. The verb ('list') is only implied by the noun phrase, keeping it from 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?

Usage is implied by 'every team in a sport' — the agent can infer this is the enumeration/lookup tool and that a sport must be supplied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer aura_get_team for a single team, and no stated prerequisites.

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