openligadb_teams

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds value by stating 'Auth: none needed' and detailing the exact return fields, which goes beyond the structured 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 appropriately front-loaded: one purpose sentence, a return-type line, an example, and an auth note. 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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, a usage example, and authentication status. The annotations handle safety semantics, so nothing critical is missing.

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 provides full descriptions for both `league` and `season` (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces these with a concrete Bundesliga example, but doesn't introduce new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the resource: 'The clubs contesting one league season' and specifies the return structure, making it clear this tool retrieves teams for a given league season. It stands apart from sibling tools like openligadb_table or openligadb_matches, though it doesn't use a verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 this is the tool to call when you need the clubs participating in a specific league season, and provides a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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