getTeams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list includes all active teams and notes about team names (emojis/special characters), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, returns, notes) and is front-loaded with key information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Returns' section more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, usage, return format, and additional notes. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response size limits), slightly lowering the score.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is high. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly states there are no inputs, as implied by the empty schema. This earns a 4 for clarity in a parameterless context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of all teams in the fantasy league.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('teams'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getTeamDetails, which is why it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to discover team IDs for use with other endpoints like getTeamDetails().' It clearly indicates when to use this tool (to get IDs for other tools) and references an alternative (getTeamDetails), meeting the criteria for a 5.

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