team_roster

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only roster lookup but adds no details such as whether the roster is active only, includes historical players, or is sorted. The behavior is predictable enough for a simple retrieve tool, but the description carries little behavioral context.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the parameter guidance follows directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with an output schema available, the description covers how to obtain and format both inputs and names its source tool. It does not add selection criteria versus sibling tools, but the low complexity and output schema reduce that burden.

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%, so this description is the only source of parameter meaning. It compensates nicely by telling the agent to get team_id via find_team and to format season as 'YYYY-YY'. It doesn't provide a concrete example or valid season range, which keeps it from a 5.

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 identifies the resource—a team's roster—and the scope—a given season. It uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'get/retrieve' verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like player_career_stats, though the resource is evident.

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 concrete call prerequisites: obtain team_id from find_team and encode season as 'YYYY-YY'. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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