pl_teamform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool is established as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by documenting the return shape ([{id, name, shortName, abbr, form, next}]), clarifying it's a top-level array, and noting 'Auth: none needed.' The field names in the return type are briefly explained by the natural language ('recent results + next fixture per team'), though field semantics like form's format aren't detailed.

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 tight and well-structured: a single value-proposition sentence, then a brief structured return block, then an auth note. Every line earns its place. The parenthetical '(the table's form guide)' is slightly redundant with the first clause but harmless. Could be marginally tightened, but overall it's 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 tool with 2 required params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the key bases: batch scope, return shape, top-level array structure, and auth requirements. It maps 'form' and 'next' in the return to natural language meanings. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of ordering or form field format), but with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, this is adequate for agent use.

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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents both cid ('Competition id (8)') and sid ('Season id (2025 = 2025/26)') with required status and URL path context. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline is 3 when the schema fully covers parameters. No value added beyond the schema, but none needed.

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 verb (returns a batch of all teams' form) and resource (season form guide: recent results + next fixture). 'Every team's form for the season in one call' establishes the all-in-one-batch scope, which differentiates it from sibling pl_team_form (which implies a single team). Slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly name the contrast with that sibling, but the singular/plural distinction is strongly implied.

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 when to use this tool ('every team's form... in one call' signals a batch/table-view use case) but never explicitly states when to avoid it or names alternatives like pl_team_form or pl_standings. It successfully conveys 'all teams at once' vs alternatives, yet the guidance is implied rather than stated. Context could be clearer for an agent deciding between this and the many sibling PL tools.

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