draftkings_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a safe read operation via 'public' and 'Returns', which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, expected output fields, or limitations. The description is adequate but leaves the agent inferring side-effect and response characteristics.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing: what it is, what it returns, and how to source parameters. It loses a point for the '/draftkills/' typo and a slightly redundant opening phrase, but overall it is efficiently written.

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 3-parameter simple lookup, the description covers what the tool does and where inputs come from. However, without an output schema it leaves 'stable team metadata' vague, not specifying what fields an agent can expect in the response, which is a meaningful gap for a data-lookup tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value by stating that all three parameters must come from an item returned by the teams endpoint, giving them a shared provenance and making the lookup pattern clear. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Returns stable team metadata embedded in a public DraftKings Sportsbook team page.' It clearly distinguishes this singular team-lookup tool from the sibling plural tool by requiring the team_id/sport/slug triple, and the boundary with /draftkings/sportsbook/teams is evident.

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 gives explicit context: supply team_id, sport, and slug from an item returned by the teams endpoint, which tells the agent this tool is for looking up an individual team after listing. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative or state when not to use it, and it contains a typo ('draftkills' instead of 'draftkings') that could mislead.

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