squiggle_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the return shape, the sentinel value 'retirement 9999 means still active', and the lack of required auth. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool actually returns.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent piece (return shape, sentinel, example, auth) adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but all content earns its place.

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?

For a simple look-up tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, return format, special sentinel value, example usage, and auth requirements. The only minor gap is that it does not elaborate on the year parameter, but the schema handles that. Overall, the tool is well-specified for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters (q and year) are fully described in the schema: q is 'Leave as-is' and year restricts to teams active in a season. The description reinforces q usage through an example but does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets, but does not exceed, 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 that this tool returns AFL clubs with Squiggle's team IDs, and emphasizes that this ID is the key every other Squiggle tool uses. This distinguishes it from many sibling tools that also list AFL teams (e.g., afl_teams_list, afl_clubs_list) by highlighting the Squiggle-specific ID mapping.

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 explicitly says 'the id every other Squiggle tool keys off', which signals when to use this tool: when you need Squiggle team IDs to use in other Squiggle tools. It also provides an example call and notes that auth is not needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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