afl_teams_idmap

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 the return format but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. Behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The first states the purpose, the second gives a return example. Each sentence provides essential information.

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 mapping tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the bidirectional mapping and the return structure, which suffices for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema (which is 100% covered). Baseline 4 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 it maps CD_T* provider IDs to integer aflapi IDs (and vice versa), with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like afl_matches_idmap and afl_players_idmap by focusing on teams.

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 usage for team ID mapping but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of other ID mapping tools like afl_matches_idmap or afl_players_idmap. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are provided.

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