Resolve a team name to its id

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns every candidate on ambiguous queries, which is valuable beyond the annotations. The 'Read-only' statement is redundant with readOnlyHint but not contradictory.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's role and key behavior.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers when to use the tool, what happens on ambiguous queries, and hints at coverage limitations via the year parameter note. It doesn't detail the output structure, but for a simple resolution tool this is sufficient.

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 query and year described. The description provides examples of loose names ('varsity football', etc.) which aid understanding but do not add substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find a team id from a loose name'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming mpaz_get_team_schedule, mpaz_get_roster, and mpaz_get_scores, telling the agent this tool is the resolver for those.

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 says to use this tool before the schedule/roster/scores tools 'rather than guessing an id', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes that it returns every candidate when the query is ambiguous, which helps the agent know what to expect and when to refine.

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