get_team_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or any rate limits. The agent cannot assess safety or cost.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks important details that would make it more useful. It is concise but under-specified, trading completeness for brevity.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core intent. However, it does not describe the output format, how return dates are represented, or whether injured players includes all or only major injuries. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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 description does not mention the 'teamId' parameter or explain its format, source, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the schema's type and minimum value.

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 lists injured players and their return dates, which is a specific verb+resource. However, the tool name 'get_team_availability' suggests broader availability, while the description narrows to injuries, causing slight misalignment. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_team_form' or 'get_team_season_profile'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_team_form' or 'search_fotmob'). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or excluded contexts. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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