sportmicro_get_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose authentication requirements, pagination, response size, or what 'documented' teams means (complete league coverage vs. a curated subset), and the promised filters are never described.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized; the only weakness is that brevity here comes from omission rather than precision.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the definition supplies no return-shape information, no data-freshness context, and no clarification of the promised filters. Too much of what an agent needs to call it correctly is left unspecified.

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?

With zero declared parameters the baseline would be 4, but the description promises 'optional filters' that the input schema does not define at all — the schema is an open object with no properties. An agent may attempt filter arguments that are silently ignored under additionalProperties=true, so the description creates a small mismatch rather than added clarity.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (football teams) scoped to the Sportmicro data source, which lets an agent separate it from siblings like sportmicro_get_players and sportmicro_get_matches by resource alone. It stops short of stating what distinguishes it beyond the noun, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'with optional filters' hints that filtering is possible but names no filter, no scenario, and no alternative tool. There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other sportmicro_get_* endpoints; the agent must infer everything from the resource name.

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