Get Sports Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further – no default page size, no behavior when filters are omitted, no note that an empty query returns an unfiltered set. 'For enriching sports events' is usage framing, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no redundancy, which is good, but the one clause it does contain ('for enriching sports events') is vague filler that does not help invocation. Brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency.

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?

The schema is fully described and there is no output schema to compensate for, so the description need not explain return values. For a simple read-only list tool with a fully annotated nested query, the description's main gap is sibling routing rather than call mechanics.

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 single parameter is a nested query object whose fields are documented at 100% coverage in the schema, including limit, offset, orderBy, and filters. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Fetch sports teams data'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the trailing rationale 'for enriching sports events' muddies rather than clarifies scope, and nothing distinguishes this from close siblings like get_sports_teams_for_provider or get_sports_players.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that also return team-like data. The agent must infer from the name alone which of several team/sport retrieval tools to pick.

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