pl_teams_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description aligns with these by calling it a 'lookup.' It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shape ([{id, name, shortName, abbr, stadium}]) and stating 'Auth: none needed.'

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 brief and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a return structure line, and an auth line. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence provides essential information.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter batch lookup with high schema coverage and informative annotations. The description covers purpose, return format, and auth requirements, so it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly without an output schema.

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 fully documents the id parameter as an array of team ids with an example ([14, 43]), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no extra parameter details, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description states 'Batch team lookup by a list of ids,' which clearly identifies a batch read operation on teams. It distinguishes itself from sibling single-team tools like pl_team by explicitly noting the batch/list nature, and the return field list adds concreteness.

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 word 'Batch' implies the tool is for looking up multiple teams at once, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., pl_team for a single team). The usage guidance is only implicit.

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