fotmob_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that data is public and that the available section set varies by team, which is useful. It does not mention response format, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a simple read-only team lookup this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and supporting details following. The list of example sections is somewhat enumerative but earns its place by clarifying what 'sections' means. No significant redundancy exists.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what is returned, gives examples of section types, notes variability, and tells the agent how to obtain a valid id. It could be more explicit about the overall response structure, but nothing essential for selecting and calling the tool is missing.

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 fully documents the single required id parameter as a 'Numeric FotMob team id'. The description adds meaningful guidance by explaining that team ids can be found via /fotmob/search, which helps an agent supply a valid value beyond what the schema states.

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 public FotMob team data and the sections available for that team, listing examples like overview, table, fixtures, and squad. It identifies a specific resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as fotmob_table or fotmob_team_news.

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 implies when to use the tool (when team details are needed) and provides a helpful prerequisite: team ids can be found via /fotmob/search. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative or when not to use this tool, leaving some room for inference.

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