cfbd_teams

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses the exact return shape, notes that the shape is unverified and may be approximate, and clearly states the authentication requirement (CFBD_API_KEY). This adds substantial behavioral context that the annotations do not cover.

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 well-structured with distinct sections for the resource, return shape, a critical caveat about unverified data, a usage example, and authentication. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff, making it both concise and informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return shape, an example, and auth requirements. However, it does not explicitly state that omitting parameters returns all teams or enumerate any pagination/limits, which would have made it fully complete for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example of using the 'conference' parameter ({"conference": "SEC"}) and notes that year affects conference membership, which adds practical value beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the resource as 'FBS/FCS programmes' with details on conference, venue, and colours, making it distinct from sibling tools like cfbd_games or cfbd_rankings. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get') and does not directly contrast itself with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides an example of filtering by conference but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as cfbd_team_season_stats or cfbd_advanced_box_score. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which specific use cases it serves beyond the implicit 'retrieve team info'.

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