afl_team_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags: 'Auth: none needed' and a concrete return shape '{teams:[...]}', which help the agent understand what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for return format, one for auth. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return shape, and auth. It lacks explicit error behavior or field-level explanations, but these are not critical for basic selection and invocation.

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%, and the teamId parameter is already well described with an example ('e.g. 1 = Adelaide Crows') and a URL path note. The description only echoes 'by id' without adding new meaning, so the 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 clearly states the tool fetches a single team by id, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single team by id'). It adds 'incl. social/home-venue metadata' to differentiate from list/mapping siblings like afl_teams_list and afl_teams_idmap.

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 establishes clear context: use when you have a specific teamId and need a single team's details, including metadata. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., use afl_teams_list for multiple teams), so it stops short of full guidance.

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