pl_team

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

Annotations already declare read-only/open/idempotent, and the description supplements with return field names and an authentication note ('Auth: none needed'). No side effects or edge cases are disclosed, but for a simple read operation this adds sufficient transparency.

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 a compact 3-line block: purpose, return fields, and auth. Every line is informative and front-loaded.

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 2-parameter read-only getter, the description provides purpose, return shape, and auth. It lacks explicit differentiation from pl_teams_by_id and does not describe the shape of player_id (e.g., whether it's an array), but overall covers essential invocation context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples (cid, tid, including team ID examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'One team within a competition by id' and lists returned fields, clearly indicating a read operation for a single team. It distinguishes from plural listing tools like pl_teams, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling pl_teams_by_id.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'within a competition' implies the need for both cid and tid, but no exclusions or comparisons with similar team retrieval tools are provided.

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