laliga_teams

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the bar for additional disclosure is met substantially. The description adds pagination behavior, approximate result count (~1541), return structure, the possibility of missing opta_id, join guidance, and auth requirements (works without key, subscription key unlocks more). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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, followed by critical usage caveats, return structure, example, and auth. Every sentence adds value and no extraneous content. Formatting with line breaks improves readability without bloating length.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by specifying the exact return shape: {total, teams:[{id, slug, name, nickname, shortname, boundname, shield, competitions}]}. It also notes the optional opta_id and pagination, covering all relevant aspects for a directory-like list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, offset) are already described as 'Page size' and 'Pagination offset (total ~1541)'. The description reinforces this with an example but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the tool is a 'Global team directory across all competitions (~1541), paginated' specifically for resolving a team's slug/id/opta_id. It explicitly distinguishes itself from season-scoped tools like laliga_standing and laliga_subscription, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it to resolve a team's slug/id/opta_id' and what not to use it for: 'NOT season-scoped; for the 20 teams in a season read laliga_standing or laliga_subscription'. This directly names alternatives and gives clear exclusions.

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