football_get_squad

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that live rosters require an API-Football key and that without one the static seed returns an empty-but-valid squad with a meta.note explaining how to get live data.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly structured Args and Returns sections. It is generally efficient, though the team parameter text is duplicated from the schema and could have been omitted without loss.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still helpfully explains the relevant return fields: data.squad, meta.source, and meta.note. Combined with the fallback-behavior disclosure, it gives an agent everything needed to call the tool and interpret an empty squad correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already carries the full parameter definition. The Args section repeats the same team description almost verbatim and adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 and resource: "Return a national team's World Cup squad." That is precise enough to distinguish it from football siblings like football_get_standings or football_get_top_scorers, which cover different resources.

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 makes the use case clear by naming the World Cup squad as the target resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of adjacent football tools or what prerequisites exist beyond the API-key caveat. Usage is therefore implied rather than actively guided.

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