Get a team's roster and coaches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: empty players lists are normal for most teams, not an error. It also notes that past seasons often work and that team ids differ per school year, which is useful behavioral information 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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides the key behavioral caveat about empty player lists, and the third states requirements and read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the normal empty-list case, required inputs, and the read-only nature. It could mention what the response structure looks like, but since there's no output schema and the tool is simple, the description is reasonably complete. The reference to mpaz_list_teams for resolving team ids adds helpful context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the year parameter (defaults to current, past seasons often work) and teamId (differs per school year), but these details are also present in the schema descriptions. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: retrieving coaching staff and players for one team. It explicitly names the resource (team roster and coaches) and the required inputs (sport slug and team id). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that most teams publish coaches but not players, which is a unique behavioral detail.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to get a team's roster and coaches. It mentions the need for sport slug and team id, and references sibling tools (mpaz_list_teams) for resolving team ids. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for other purposes, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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