espn_team_roster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the data comes from 'credential-free public JSON', implying no authentication is needed. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or behavior on invalid sport/league combinations, beyond the implicit constraint that league must be valid for the sport.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, which is concise. The second sentence enumerates all sport and league values, which is redundant with the schema enums but provides quick reference. It is not overly verbose and each sentence earns its place, though the enum list could be trimmed given the schema already defines it.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return content (players with attributes and head coach). It also covers the required parameters and their valid values. However, it does not mention potential errors, how to find team IDs/abbreviations, or any limitations (e.g., which sports have complete data). For a simple roster fetch, it is largely sufficient.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including enums and the note that league must be valid for the sport. The description reinforces this by listing the enum values and repeating the constraint, adding minimal new meaning. It does clarify that team can be a numeric ID or abbreviation, which is already in the schema, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific player attributes (position, jersey, age, experience) and head coach, using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous about the data source (ESPN) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mlb_team_roster or espn_team, relying on the tool name and source mention.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as espn_team, espn_teams, or mlb_team_roster. It only describes what it returns, leaving the agent to infer its usage from the name and content. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are mentioned.

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