search_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the searchable fields (name, tag, alias) and implies a read-only search operation. Yet it does not disclose matching semantics (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), result ordering, or potential rate limits, so it only partially covers behavioral traits.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence with no redundant words. The action verb is front-loaded, and every phrase ('professional Dota 2 teams', 'by name, tag, or alias') adds necessary detail.

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 the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and core search fields. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings and behavioral notes like pagination or match behavior, but these are not critical for a basic search tool, so it earns a 4.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'query' parameter accepts a team name, tag, or alias, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'max_results' is not explained, and the description does not elaborate on format or constraints, leaving a slight gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('professional Dota 2 teams') and specifies the search method ('by name, tag, or alias'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team (likely by ID) and get_team_by_name (exact lookup), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It clearly indicates this is the search tool for teams by name/tag/alias, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., get_team_by_name for exact name lookups) or exclude cases, falling short of a 5.

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