Get Dota 2 team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is retrieved (metadata, roster, coaches), which annotations do not cover. No contradictions found.

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 (15 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or fluff. It is maximally concise while still being informative.

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 (one required parameter, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description covers the essential: what it returns, how to get the input, and the prerequisite. It omits details like rate limits or authentication, but those are not critical for a read-only, idempotent tool. The output schema handles return format, so completeness is 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of canonical_title. The description reinforces the schema's message ('from an exact Liquipedia canonical title returned by search_dota2_entities') but does not add new details beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team metadata, roster, and coaches'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_dota2_player or get_dota2_tournament. It also specifies the exact source (Liquipedia canonical title from search_dota2_entities), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 ties the tool directly to search_dota2_entities, implying that the agent should first obtain a canonical title via that search tool. This provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the differentiation from sibling tools is clear from the scope.

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