espn_team

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 source is 'credential-free public JSON,' indicating no auth needed. It also states the tool returns one team's detail and lists the fields, and reiterates that league must be valid for sport. It does not cover error cases or output structure, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose ('ESPN team detail'), then details return fields, then enumerates parameters. No fluff, every sentence contributes. The enum lists are long but necessary for clarity, and they are the bulk of the second sentence.

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 hints at the response by listing fields (identity, colors, record, standing summary). It covers input constraints (league must be valid for sport) and the credential-free nature. Missing details like error behavior or exact output format are minor for a simple lookup tool; the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists all enum values for sport and league, but these are already present in the schema's enum fields. The team parameter's meaning ('Team id (numeric) or abbreviation') is only in the schema, not repeated. Thus the description adds little beyond the schema—just the explicit constraint that league must be valid for sport, which is also in the schema.

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. This distinguishes it from siblings like espn_team_roster (roster), espn_standings (standings), and espn_teams (list of teams). The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'one team's detail' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage by listing what it returns (e.g., 'record, standing summary') but never names sibling tools or provides conditions like 'for rosters use espn_team_roster.' An agent could infer, but explicit guidance is missing.

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