transfer_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: auto-detection of the user's team when logged in, which is beyond the schema. However, it does not mention what happens if not logged in and team_id is omitted, nor does it indicate read-only status (obvious from 'show'), or any side effects. Some value added, but gaps remain.

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 short sentences, fully front-loaded with the primary purpose. No filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding. This is an exemplary concise definition.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the auto-detection nuance. It doesn't elaborate on error conditions (e.g., not logged in with no team_id) but the simplicity and presence of output schema make it largely complete. A small gap remains around authentication requirements, but overall adequate.

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 only implicitly references team_id via 'Auto-detects your team,' suggesting team_id is optional or overrides the auto-detection. It never explicitly explains that team_id identifies the target team or what value format is expected. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's default null.

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's function: 'Show a team's transfers this season.' It uses a specific verb (show) and resource (team's transfers) with a scope (this season), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_transfer, suggest_transfers, or get_my_team. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the phrase 'Auto-detects your team if logged in' gives context for usage—implying team_id is only needed when not logged in or for another team. However, it fails to state clear conditions for when to choose this over transfer_preview or suggest_transfers. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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