afl_teams_idmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these annotations, including the return shape ('Returns: {entityType:'team', idMapResponse:{ids:{'CD_T10':1, ...}}}') and authentication requirements ('Auth: none needed'). This enriches the agent's understanding 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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by the return format and auth note. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundant fluff, making it efficiently 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?

For a simple parameterless ID mapping tool, the description is complete. It explains the bidirectional mapping, provides an example return structure, and states authentication requirements. The annotations and schema cover the rest, making the description sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies no inputs are required. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by noting the tool takes no arguments, which is consistent with the schema.

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's function: 'Map CD_T* team providerIds to integer aflapi ids (and vice versa).' This identifies the specific resource (team provider IDs) and the operation (mapping to integer AFL API IDs), distinguishing it from sibling ID mapping tools like afl_matches_idmap and afl_players_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 implies usage when a user needs to convert between CD_T* team provider IDs and integer aflapi IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The intended use is clear from the purpose, but no explicit guidance is given.

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