pl_season_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the baseline safety is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed' and detailing the return format ({pagination, data:[...]}) and the scoping to the season's table, 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 two sentences plus a return-type line and an auth note. Every phrase is purposeful, with no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 list tool, the description includes the return structure and auth requirement. It does not elaborate on pagination fields, but no output schema exists, so the provided return format is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (cid, sid, limit) described in the input schema. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond hinting at the default 20 teams, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 returns teams for a given season, scoped to 'the 20 in that season's table.' It distinguishes from generic team tools like pl_teams (all teams) and pl_team (single team) by specifying the season context, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pl_standings or pl_teams_by_id. It implies the need for cid and sid but does not state when this is the preferred choice or any exclusions.

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