espn_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description needs less disclosure. It adds the return structure and auth requirements, which is useful. However, there is an inconsistency: it claims 'colours and logos' are included but the return structure only shows id, displayName, abbreviation. This minor contradiction in the description reduces trust in behavioral transparency.

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 purpose, usage, return structure, example, and auth note. It is concise but covers all essential aspects. The inclusion of both a return structure and example is valuable, though the discrepancy about colours/logos adds a minor blip, preventing a perfect score.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description compensates nicely by showing the return structure and an example. It also mentions auth and usage context. The only gap is the inconsistent mention of fields (colours/logos vs. the return structure), which leaves a small ambiguity about the exact response shape.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptive text (sport and league slugs). The description adds a concrete example ({'sport': 'football', 'league': 'nfl'}) and the phrase 'for one league' reinforcing the league parameter. This goes beyond the schema by providing a clear, valid input pair, so it earns a 4.

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 'Team catalogue for one league' and lists the specific fields (id, name, abbreviation, colours, logos). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_teams or mlb_teams, and the reference to using team ids with espn_site_call clarifies its role in the ESPN ecosystem.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use the team ids with espn_site_call (team_roster, team_schedule, …)' which tells the agent when to use this tool. It also provides an example input. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar for a 5.

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