draftkings_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the data is stable and embedded in a public DraftKings page, which implies a read-only, low-auth operation. However, it does not describe return structure, pagination, or potential failure modes, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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: it states the resource and return value first, then gives parameter provenance and constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy.

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 simple metadata lookup, the description is mostly sufficient, but there is no output schema and no detail on what fields 'stable team metadata' contains. An agent could call the tool, but may not know what to do with the returned page metadata or how it is structured.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by saying all three values should come from a single item returned by /draftkings/sportsbook/teams, and it repeats the allowed sport values, which reinforces correct usage.

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 that the tool returns stable team metadata for a DraftKings Sportsbook team, naming the resource and the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `draftkings_teams` tool, but the singular/plural distinction and the mention of 'an item returned by /draftkings/sportsbook/teams' make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 gives a concrete usage precondition: supply `team_id`, `sport`, and `slug` from an item returned by /draftkings/sportsbook/teams. It also enumerates the allowed sport values. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the provenance guidance is strong.

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