supercoach_teams

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description goes beyond by stating the return shape ('array of {id, name, abbrev, ...}'), explicit 'Auth: none needed', and an example request. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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: five short sentences plus a JSON example. Each part serves a purpose—purpose, contents, join hint, return shape, example, auth—with no fluff or 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides purpose, return shape, auth, supported sports, and an example. It is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (mode, year, sport). The description's example and team counts add marginal context, but the schema already explains the parameters thoroughly, so the description does not significantly compensate or add beyond 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 a club/team catalogue for a specific game and season, listing counts per sport and fields (id, name, abbrev). It distinguishes itself from player tools by explicitly noting the join from supercoach_players, and is distinct from generic team list tools by its SuperCoach-specific 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?

Provides clear context that this is for fetching SuperCoach team catalogues, with a concrete use case: 'Join team_id from supercoach_players back to here.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.

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