sportsgameodds_teams

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, instructing users to inspect the actual payload. It also clearly states the auth key requirement. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations, though it omits details like pagination or error behavior.

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 with a clear shape definition, a prominent caveat about unverified vendor documentation, a concrete example, and an auth note. Each section serves a purpose and the formatting improves readability. It is slightly longer than necessary, but the added detail about uncertainty and authentication is justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return shape and a usage example. It also covers authentication and warns about data reliability. It does not address pagination or error scenarios, but for a simple two-parameter lookup tool with strong annotations, the level of detail is adequate.

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 schema already documents both parameters with basic descriptions ('One team.' and 'League id.'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds a practical example for leagueID and clarifies that teamIDs are those used in events, but it does not explain how the optional teamID parameter behaves (e.g., single vs. multiple teams) or the default when no filter is provided. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource as teams in a league and notes that the returned teamIDs are the ones used inside event objects, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sportsgameodds_leagues or sportsgameodds_events. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'List'), starting with a noun phrase instead, which prevents a perfect score.

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 a concrete usage example with leagueID: 'NFL', and explains that teamIDs from this tool are referenced in event objects, implying when this tool is useful. It also states the auth requirement. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a basic lookup tool.

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