Resolve a team

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's remaining burden is behavioral detail, which it supplies: offline roster reads with no network access, fuzzy/alias acceptance, and the ambiguity contract (single confident 'team' plus 'matches' candidates when the query is loose, e.g. 'south'). That ambiguity behavior is not derivable from the annotations and materially affects how an agent consumes the result.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return payload, and every subsequent sentence carries routing, alias, or ambiguity information. The 'World Cup roster' framing is mild flourish, but the text stays dense and free of 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-param resolver, the description covers purpose, routing to and away from siblings, input tolerance, ambiguity handling, and offline behavior. An output schema exists so return structure need not be spelled out, and the description still names the 'team' and 'matches' fields anyway, leaving no gap an agent would need.

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% for the single query param, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's three examples by enumerating aliases and fuzzy variants ('mex', 'Türkiye'/'Turkey', 'Holland'), which tells the agent the param is forgiving and need not be normalized — real meaning the schema does not convey.

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 (resolve a nation name or 3-letter code) and names exactly what it returns: FIFA code, flag, and group. It also draws a hard boundary against siblings, noting that get_next_fixture and get_share_snippet resolve club names themselves, so an agent can pick the right resolver without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use ('Useful for the 3-letter code get_market_signal needs') tied to a named sibling, and an explicit when-not-to-use ('It knows no clubs'), naming the two tools that handle clubs instead. Both the positive and negative routing conditions are stated outright rather than implied.

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