search_teams

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral expectations. It does so by revealing the dual-name matching strategy and the optional season parameter, which helps the agent understand how search results are produced. It does not cover error cases or case sensitivity, but the core search behavior is transparent.

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 well-organized: a summary sentence, a brief contextual note, and a clean Args list. Every sentence provides necessary value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, one required, output schema provided), the description covers the essential behavior and parameters adequately. Minor gaps include not clarifying how the season parameter narrows results or the behavior when no match is found, but these are not critical for a search 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is critical. It explains 'name' as 'any part of the club name' with concrete examples and describes 'season' as an optional season code with a format example. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find a club's canonical team_code from a partial name.' This clearly defines the tool's objective and distinguishes it from siblings like search_players, which searches for players. The note about seasonal renames adds domain-specific specificity.

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 provides clear context by explaining that clubs are renamed between seasons and that the tool matches both seasonal and permanent names. This implies when the tool should be used but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, stopping 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.