laliga_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination, return structure including specific fields (id, slug, etc.), presence of opta_id on most teams, and the approximate total count (~1541). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but as a read-only directory, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with a return format and an example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, scope, distinction from siblings, return type, and usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is thorough: it explains the purpose, what it returns, how to paginate, and when to use alternatives. It is missing details like sorting order or stability, but these are not critical for a directory listing tool.

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 two self-explanatory parameters (limit, offset), and the description mentions pagination and gives an example (first page) which implies default values. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explicitly define or validate the parameters beyond the example.

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 it is a 'global team directory across all competitions (~1541), paginated' and specifically says to 'use it to resolve a team's slug/id/opta_id'. It distinguishes itself from season-scoped tools like laliga_standing and laliga_subscription, which are explicitly mentioned as alternatives for that specific use case.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to resolve team identifiers from a global directory) and when not to use it (not for season-scoped teams, directing to laliga_standing or laliga_subscription). It does not explicitly state all alternative tools or scenarios, but for the given context it is clear enough.

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