footballdataorg_teams

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

The description discloses the authentication requirement (403 without key) and explicitly warns that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, which adds valuable context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, and the description does not contradict them.

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 organized into clear sections (purpose, return shape, note, example, auth) and front-loads the purpose. The return shape block is lengthy but necessary given the absence of an output schema; overall it avoids unnecessary prose.

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?

The description covers the key invocation details: required competition, optional season, authentication, and a caveat about response shape. It lacks alternative tool guidance but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only listing operation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example value ('PL') and mentions the competition is part of the URL path, reinforcing the schema but not significantly extending it.

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 states 'The clubs in a competition' and includes a return shape, making it clear this tool lists teams for a specified competition. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like footballdataorg_team (single team) and footballdataorg_competition (competition details), though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 implies usage by providing an example with 'competition': 'PL' and emphasizes the need for an API key, but it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as footballdataorg_standings or pl_teams. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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