find_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the accepted identifier forms and the return value, but says nothing about ambiguity on non-unique names, case sensitivity, not-found behavior, or whether the match must be exact. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves meaningful edge cases unstated.

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, front-loaded with the action and ending with the downstream purpose. No redundant wording or generic filler.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema available, the description covers what identifiers to pass and why the result is useful. The only notable omission is behavior on no match or ambiguous match, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the bare schema only says name is a required string. The description supplies the missing semantics by stating that name can be a team name, city, or 3-letter abbreviation, with BOS as an example. It doesn't cover input formatting or validation edge cases, but it makes the parameter's intended values clear.

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 action ('Look up an NBA team') and names three accepted identifier types, which is enough to distinguish this from find_player and list_teams. It also states the concrete deliverable, the team_id used by team_roster.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when you need to resolve a team reference to the team_id consumed by team_roster. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full 5.

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