espn_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the data is from ESPN's credential-free public JSON, implying no authentication is needed and it's a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, performance, or side effects beyond the implied safety of a public API.

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, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output fields, while the second enumerates the valid parameter values. No extraneous information; every sentence contributes directly to tool understanding.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of the response fields (identity, colors, record, standing summary), which is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's data. However, it does not specify the format or structure of those fields, and the total completeness is slightly held back by the lack of details on how the data is presented.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It lists all valid enum values for 'sport' and 'league', which are absent in the schema descriptions. It also clarifies that 'league' must be valid for the chosen sport, providing critical dependency information that the schema's brief descriptions lack.

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 returns one team's detail (identity, colors, record, standing summary) from ESPN's public JSON. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like espn_teams (multiple teams) and espn_team_roster (roster) by specifying it returns a single team's full detail.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need a single team's details), but it does not explicitly differentiate from espn_teams or other team-related tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided; the usage context is inferred from the output specification.

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