Get Teams

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Public — no auth', which is not present in the annotations, and by scoping the data to 'teams known to FutPicks'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('List teams known to FutPicks'), and the second sentence adds a key auth fact. Every word 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 zero-parameter, simple listing tool with read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose and auth. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., names, IDs), but the low complexity means an agent can infer the likely shape. Slightly more detail would make it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters. The schema already covers this completely.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('teams'), and scope ('known to FutPicks'). It is immediately clear what the tool does, and since no sibling tool is team-focused, it distinguishes itself by topic.

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 implies usage—call this when you need the list of teams—but does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'Public — no auth' note provides useful context on when it can be called freely, but no comparative guidance is given.

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