get_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful cross-tool behavior: lookups elsewhere accept either the team name or the owner name, plus the exact return fields. It does not declare read-only status or any permission/limit characteristics, but for a zero-parameter listing this is meaningful added context beyond the schema.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the sequencing guidance follows immediately. Every sentence contributes new information.

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 discovery/list tool with zero parameters and an output schema that documents the return shape, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and how the returned names are consumed downstream. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no words on parameter syntax and instead clarifies the naming contract callers will rely on elsewhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every team in the league') and names what is returned ('team name and owner'). This cleanly separates it from sibling team-scoped tools like get_team_roster, compare_teams, and get_team_analysis, which operate on a specific team rather than enumerating all of them.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing directive: 'Use this first so you know the exact names to pass to other tools.' That tells the agent this is the ID/name-resolution prerequisite for the rest of the family. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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