nbl_teams

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behaviors. The description adds value by specifying the return structure, noting that it includes historical/relocated franchises, and stating that no auth is needed. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter catalogue tool.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence overview, a formatted return shape, and an auth note. No unnecessary details; 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 simple zero-parameter catalogue tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to relate it to other NBL data, and authentication requirements. The included return shape 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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The empty input schema is fully covered by the description (schema coverage 100%). The description correctly implies this is an unfiltered list of all teams.

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 this as the NBL club catalogue, listing teams with their IDs, names, codes, logos, and colors. It explicitly specifies the scope (~78 incl. historical/relocated franchises) and differentiates it from related tools by mentioning the join keys from nbl_players/nbl_schedule.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to join team_id from nbl_players/nbl_schedule to team details. It implies using this when you need team metadata, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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