laliga_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds meaningful context beyond these by disclosing the auth requirement ('works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more if set') and the exact return shape. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a return structure, and an auth note. No filler or redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter team lookup, the description covers the resource, return fields, and auth behavior. The only notable omission is not pointing users to a tool like laliga_teams for discovering slugs, but this is a minor gap given the schema's examples and the simple scope.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, including examples and a note that it is part of the URL path. The description's mention of 'by SLUG' and the returned slug field adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 (one La Liga team) and the lookup method (by SLUG), enumerating the content delivered (club info, colours, foundation, socials, competitions, venue). It distinguishes this singular team endpoint from its plural sibling laliga_teams and other La Liga tools.

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 phrase 'One team by SLUG' implies the tool is for fetching a specific team, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like laliga_teams or how to obtain a valid slug. There is no mention of exclusions or alternate tools, leaving some implicit guidance.

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