footballdataorg_team

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing the auth requirement (403 without key) and honestly noting that the return shape is unverified and approximate, advising the agent to inspect the live payload. This goes beyond the annotations and sets accurate expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary details in a structured way: auth, return shape, caveat, example, and auth again. Each line earns its place, though the return shape block is lengthy and the auth note appears twice, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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?

For a simple team lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields, providing an example, and flagging the unverified shape. The auth requirement is also critical for successful invocation. It is largely complete, though it could mention that the teamId should come from the teams list (already in schema) and lacks any note about expected data freshness or pagination (unlikely needed here).

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter teamId, already describing it as the team id from footballdataorg_teams and part of the URL path. The description adds a concrete example with teamId 57 but does not provide substantial extra semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 what the tool does: returns one club with its squad and running competitions. The phrase 'One club' distinguishes it from the plural 'footballdataorg_teams' sibling, and the example with teamId reinforces the singular fetch. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 important usage context: it requires a key (403 without), and the example shows how to call it. It implies when to use it (getting a single team) versus listing teams, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool. The auth requirement is a clear prerequisite.

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