espn_teams

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 data comes from ESPN's credential-free public JSON, implying a read-only, publicly accessible operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but for a simple data retrieval tool, this level of disclosure 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 concise: three sentences. First sentence states purpose, second lists sport options, third lists league options. No unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (returns a list) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it does not describe the output format or fields (e.g., team IDs, names). While the tool is straightforward, describing the output would enhance completeness.

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 provides only vague parameter descriptions ('Sport key', 'League key'). The description adds significant value by explicitly listing all valid enum values for both sport and league, and indicating the league must be valid for the chosen sport. This is crucial for correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the full team list for a sport and league from ESPN's public JSON. It specifies the verb (returns), resource (team list), and scope (full list for given sport/league), distinguishing it from sibling tools like espn_team (single team) and espn_team_roster (roster).

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?

Description makes it clear when to use this tool: to get a full team list for a specified sport and league. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context (sibling tools) implies that for individual team details, other tools exist. This is a minor gap.

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