opendota_teams

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: approximate response size (~250 KB), ordering by rating, field structure, and the fact that no authentication is required. No contradictions with 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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first line states what it is, the second line details the return format, the example clarifies usage, and the auth line addresses access. No redundancy or unnecessary jargon.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields, ordering, size, and auth. It could perhaps mention pagination or the specific Dota 2 context, but the tool name and 'Professional teams' suffice. The provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, though it does provide useful output details which are not parameter-related.

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 tool as returning professional Dota 2 teams ranked by rating, with fields for win/loss records. The resource (teams) and the specific ordering/scope are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from sibling opendota tools (e.g., heroes, leagues) by focusing on teams and ratings.

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 implies a use case through the example 'Pro teams by rating' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling comparison is made, leaving the agent to infer that this is the go-to for team ratings from OpenDota.

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