List a school’s teams

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the sport path segment structure varies by sport (e.g., girls golf vs boys golf) and field hockey has no gender segment, plus the dual behavior when a team path is passed instead of a school path. This goes beyond 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 compact yet packed with essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and uses examples to clarify non-obvious path conventions. No superfluous sentences.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return content (team paths with sport, gender, level) and the important input variation (school vs team path). It provides enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly, including the non-obvious gender path segments.

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 covers 100% of parameters (school, sport, level). The description adds semantic depth by explaining that sport path segments are not guessable due to gender defaults varying by sport, providing concrete examples. It also clarifies that the school parameter accepts a school site path or URL, and that passing a team path changes the return to that team's seasons.

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 lists a school's teams with sport, gender, and level, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining that team path segments are not guessable, making it the necessary precursor to other team tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this before any team tool' and explains why (sport path segments are not guessable). It also documents an alternative use case: passing a team path returns that team's seasons, which guides the agent to choose the appropriate path.

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