Get one team's full schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful context: results are ordered oldest first, and past seasons often work with the caveat to check the year's team id and coverage note via mpaz_list_teams. This goes beyond annotation values.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then the prerequisite, then the read-only note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity read tool with rich annotations and full parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers purpose, ordering, and prerequisites. It doesn't detail the response fields, but no output schema is present and the tool name implies a schedule; minor gap only.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema already says, though it emphasizes that both sportSlug and teamId are required, which is already in the schema. 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 returns a single team's complete season in chronological order, using a specific verb (get) and resource (team schedule) with scope (single team). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mpaz_get_schedule by emphasizing 'single team' and requiring both sport slug and team id.

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 to resolve sport slug and team id with mpaz_list_teams or mpaz_resolve_team first, giving clear prerequisite usage. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for multi-team schedules, but the 'single team' framing implies differentiation from mpaz_get_schedule.

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