Resolve a team

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds key behavioral details: fuzzy matching, forgiveness, offline operation, and the return of both a single match and ambiguous candidates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is well-structured and efficient. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage examples and behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's fuzzy lookup nature and offline design, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and return value expectations. Output schema exists, so return fields are partially inferred; overall complete for its complexity.

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% (single 'query' parameter with description). The description expands with concrete examples (Mexico, MEX, USA, DR Congo) and clarifies fuzzy behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool resolves a team name to FIFA code, flag, and group using fuzzy matching. It highlights its role as the first step for other tools and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the coordination pattern.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first to convert user input to a code for downstream tools (get_next_fixture, etc.). Mentions offline behavior but does not explicitly state when not to use it; however, the intended workflow is clear.

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