List the school's teams

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond those: the coverage note, the fallback to sport pages for past years, and the meaning of an empty list. This is genuinely useful context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical caveats about year-specific IDs and partial coverage. It is compact yet information-dense without being verbose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, edge cases, output semantics, and relationship to sibling tools. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema itself already fully describes the `year` parameter (default, past behavior). The description adds further clarification about the coverage note and empty-list semantics, so it adds some value beyond the schema but is not the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List this school's athletic teams for a school year') and explicitly states the output's purpose ('team id needed by the schedule, roster and scores tools'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mpaz_get_schedule or mpaz_resolve_team.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to obtain team IDs for other tools) and provides important caveats: team IDs differ per year, past-year coverage is partial, and an empty list should not be interpreted as absence of teams. This gives the agent explicit context for when and how to use it.

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