pl_teamform

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

The description discloses the return format but does not mention behavioral aspects like idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose and one line for return format, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects), the description covers the main purpose and return structure but lacks details on parameter meanings and the exact format of 'form' and 'next' fields.

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 has two parameters (cid, sid) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent, leaving the agent to infer that 'sid' is season ID from the context but 'cid' is unclear.

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 it returns team form including recent results and next fixture for all teams in a season. However, there is a very similarly named sibling 'pl_team_form' which could cause confusion, and the description does not explicitly differentiate from it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. It merely states what it does without context.

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