sportmonks_teams

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds valuable context beyond this: the need for a SPORTMONKS token, the unverified vendor-documented response shape, and the explicit warning to inspect the actual payload before relying on field names. This additional transparency about data reliability and authentication is genuinely useful.

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 well-structured: it opens with a concise summary, then gives a sample return shape, a critical caveat about unverified documentation, and an auth note. The 'Example: Teams on your plan' line is cryptic and adds little, but overall the length is justified and the text is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return shape, pagination info, authentication requirements, and a caveat about data reliability. This is fairly complete for a list/read-only tool. The main gap is the unexplained 'search or season' capability, which leaves the tool's full usage surface ambiguous.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for page, include, and per_page, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics—in fact, it introduces a 'search/season' concept not represented in the schema, which could mislead an agent into expecting parameters that do not exist. No additional value is provided beyond the schema's already minimal descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving clubs/teams from Sportmonks, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sportmonks_leagues or sportmonks_players. However, the phrase 'by search or by season' is vague and does not specify what search terms or season identifiers are accepted, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions two modes ('search' and 'season') but does not explain how they differ or when to prefer one over the other, and there is no mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria. The only practical guidance is the auth requirement, which is operational rather than usage-oriented.

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