Resolve a team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds valuable behavioral context: matching is fuzzy and forgiving, the tool is offline and reads the bundled roster, and it returns a single confident match plus candidates for ambiguous queries. There is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded with the core transformation, then adds examples, usage context, return behavior, and offline status in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are illustrative rather than padding.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema available, the description covers input examples, matching behavior, ambiguous-query output, and offline safety. It also tells the agent where this tool fits in the larger workflow. The only minor omission is explicit no-match behavior, but this does not undermine completeness given the output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the query parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema with concrete examples ('Mexico', 'mex', 'USA', 'DR Congo', 'Türkiye'/'Turkey', 'Holland'), explains fuzzy matching tolerance, and clarifies ambiguity handling.

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 verb and resource ('Resolve a nation name or 3-letter code to its FIFA code, flag, and group'), making the core purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the lookup step that produces the code other tools consume.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this FIRST' and lists the downstream tools that need the resolved code (get_next_fixture, get_standings, get_market_signal, get_share_snippet). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a comparable resolution alternative, but the workflow guidance is unambiguous.

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