get_my_team

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (Bearer token) and the auto-detection behavior for team_id, which are behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not explicitly confirm read-only status or error handling, but the 'get' verb and output schema suffice for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences plus a parameter note. Purpose is front-loaded, no filler, every sentence earns its place. Extremely efficient.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return value details. The description covers authentication, parameter semantics, and the scope of returned data. For a simple single-parameter read operation, nothing essential is missing.

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 zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It fully explains team_id: it is optional, and if omitted, it is auto-detected from the authenticated account. This adds crucial semantic value beyond the bare integer/null schema.

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 retrieves an FPL team and lists the specific contents (starting XI, bench, captain, bank, value, chips). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like get_player or get_fixtures.

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 gives context (authentication required, optional team_id auto-detection) but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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