pl_teams

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions pagination and the return structure, but lacks details on order, filtering capabilities beyond 'cid', rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Adequate but not thorough.

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 short and includes the return structure, but it sacrifices clarity on parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the missing parameter context reduces efficiency.

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 has three parameters (one required), pagination, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to use 'cid', what 'seasons' contains, or how pagination works with 'next_cursor'. Sibling tools further highlight the need for clearer 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent must infer that 'cid' is likely a competition ID, but no clarification is given, and 'limit' and 'next_cursor' are not explained.

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 'All teams that have played the competition' with a detailed structure including fields like seasons, stadium, name, abbreviation, and ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_team (single team) and pl_teams_by_id (by IDs).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pl_team or pl_season_teams. The description implies it's for a paginated list of all teams for a given competition, but does not state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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