apisports_football_teams

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds valuable, non-obvious behavioral context: that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified against a live response, and that an API key is required. This is beyond the annotations and helps set agent expectations about reliability.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a return shape block, a caveat, an example, and an auth note. Every section earns its place and is easy to parse. It's not bloated but provides necessary context.

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 that there's no output schema, the description provides the full return shape and flags it as approximate. It also covers auth requirements and a usage example. For a read-only team-list tool with 5 parameters all described in the schema, this is complete and practical.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds examples and clarifies that 'search' is for names, but it doesn't add detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is fully descriptive.

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 retrieves clubs/teams by league/season, country, or name search, which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fixtures or standings. It also provides a concise summary of the return shape, reinforcing what this tool does.

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 lists the primary filter modes (league/season, country, name search) and gives an example, which helps an agent choose the right parameters. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the name and description make it clear this is the teams endpoint among many apisports tools.

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