nbl_team_roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the return shape and 'Auth: none needed', which are useful behavioral details not covered by annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured returns line and a single auth note. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 read-only roster lookup, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, output structure, and authentication requirements. The schema handles parameter details, and the return shape in the description compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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%, with both parameters (year, teamId) fully documented including the meaning of year and the source of teamId. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'One team's roster for a season', specifying the verb (roster) and the resource scope (one team, one season). It also points to where teamId comes from, distinguishing this from sibling tools like nbl_players, nbl_schedule, and nbl_ladder.

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 tells the user that teamId must come from nbl_players/nbl_schedule/nbl_ladder team objects, which implies a prerequisite step. It lacks explicit comparison with alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough to infer appropriate usage.

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