Resolve a team name to its id

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

The description discloses the ambiguity behavior: 'Returns every candidate when the query is ambiguous.' This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining the non-deterministic output shape. The 'Read-only' statement aligns with the annotation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose with examples, usage guidance with explicit sibling tools, and a brief note on ambiguous results. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, two parameters, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and the key behavioral nuance of ambiguity. It does not describe the exact return structure for candidates, but for a resolution tool this is not a significant gap, and the description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, with both provided parameters already described in the input schema. The description enriches the query parameter with extra examples ('varsity football', 'girls JV volleyball'), but does not add substantially new semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Find a team id from a loose name', with concrete examples that immediately clarify what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mpaz_list_teams by focusing on name-ambiguous resolution rather than listing all 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this before mpaz_get_team_schedule / mpaz_get_roster / mpaz_get_scores rather than guessing an id.' This names the alternative tools and the proper workflow, giving clear context and avoiding guesswork.

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