espn_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns teams with specific fields and shows the exact return structure. No side effects or destructive behaviors are mentioned, but the tool appears read-only; transparency is adequate.

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 very concise, consisting of three sentences: purpose, return structure, and an example. No redundant information is present, and it is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a sample response structure and an example, making the return format clear. It does not address potential issues like pagination or data limits, but for a simple team catalogue, the depth is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters ('sport' and 'league') have 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'one league' and gives an example 'NFL', but does not explain acceptable values, formats, or constraints. This lack of semantic detail forces the agent to guess or rely on external context.

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 that this tool returns a team catalogue for one league, including id, name, abbreviation, colours, and logos. It provides a concrete return structure and an example (All 32 NFL teams), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to use obtained team IDs with 'espn_site_call' for team rosters, schedules, etc., providing clear usage guidance. It implies this tool is for fetching team identifiers, but does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention when not to use it.

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