Get a team's roster and coaches

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals a critical behavioral nuance: most teams publish coaches but not players, so an empty list is normal, not an error. It also warns that team ids differ per school year and advises checking 'coverage' notes. These details prevent misinterpretation of results.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds the key edge case and a read-only note. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 description, combined with a rich input schema and annotations, fully covers the tool's behavior for a roster-fetch operation. It addresses the most likely confusing scenario (empty players list) and provides the necessary prerequisite steps. With no output schema, the return value is not required to be detailed.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it reinforces the requirement of sportSlug and teamId.

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: returning coaching staff and players for a single team. The title and description align on the specific resource, and the scope ('for one team') distinguishes it from list-style siblings like mpaz_list_teams.

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 states required inputs ('Requires the sport slug and team id') and guides the agent to use mpaz_list_teams first to resolve the correct team id for a given year. It also clarifies that an empty players list is expected, setting proper expectations. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but provides sufficient context.

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