balldontlie_epl_teams

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints. The description adds a significant caveat: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, urging the agent to inspect the actual payload. It also discloses the auth key requirement, going beyond the structured fields.

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 structured with clear Returns/NOTE/Example/Auth sections; each part earns its place. Slightly verbose, but the note is valuable and the organization aids scanning.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the expected return shape, an example, auth instructions, and a warning about unverified data. It is complete for a simple tool, with the caveat itself acting as a transparency feature.

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 single `season` parameter is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds an example value (2023) but no deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Premier League clubs for a season'—clear resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling pl_* team tools, but the return shape and provider reference differentiate it implicitly.

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?

Mentions 'The keyless official premierleague provider is deeper for the EPL'—giving a comparative cue about an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or when to prefer the alternative.

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