espn_team_roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the source (ESPN's public JSON) implying no auth, and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose rate limits, update frequency, or other behavioral traits.

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-loading the core purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for enums), but it is efficient and informative.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description describes return content (player fields, head coach). For a simple roster lookup, it is fairly complete, though missing pagination or error handling details.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by listing specific enum values for sport and league, and clarifying that team can be numeric ID or abbreviation, exceeding schema documentation.

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 a team's roster with player details and head coach from ESPN's public JSON. It specifies the accepted sports and leagues, making the purpose very specific and actionable.

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 say when to use this tool over siblings like espn_athlete or espn_team. It provides context on what is returned but lacks guidance on when it is appropriate.

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