espn_teams

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 comes from a 'credential-free public JSON' endpoint, which is useful context about access. However, it doesn't describe the return format, whether the list is sorted, or any rate limits. For a simple read-only list tool, this 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the enums. It's somewhat long due to the enum lists, but those lists are useful and the schema already contains them, so there's minor redundancy. No wasted sentences.

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 two-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, the valid parameter values, and the cross-parameter constraint. It doesn't describe the output structure, but there's no output schema and the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely infer the return shape. The lack of any behavioral notes (e.g., pagination, sorting) is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the full enum lists for sport and league, which duplicates the schema but reinforces the valid values. It also adds the constraint that league must be valid for the chosen sport, which is a meaningful cross-parameter relationship not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full team list for a sport and league from ESPN's credential-free public JSON.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the data source. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like espn_team or espn_team_roster, but the 'full team list' phrasing makes 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need the full team list for a sport/league. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools like espn_team and espn_team_roster are implicitly different. The constraint that league 'must be valid for the chosen sport' is useful usage guidance.

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