pl_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination, the exact return shape, and that no auth is needed. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first line defines the resource and its contents, followed by a concise return-type sketch, a concrete example, and a clear auth note. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy.

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 simple list operation, the description is complete enough: it specifies pagination, return fields, auth requirements, and a practical example. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the inline return shape, and the input schema fully documents limit and next_cursor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example ({"cid": 8}) that maps to Premier League and by stating the return payload structure, which helps disambiguate how cid is used. This lifts it above 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 all teams that have played a competition, with specific fields listed ('seasons[], stadium, name, shortName, abbr, id'). It is unambiguous as a list operation and the example ties it to Premier League teams via cid. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like pl_team, pl_season_teams, or 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?

The description gives clear context: use this to fetch all teams for a given competition, demonstrated with the Premier League example (cid: 8). It does not state exclusions or explicitly mention alternative tools, but the 'all teams' framing makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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