get_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses returned data (fields, idStadium surfaced) and implies read-only. It does not mention error handling or auth, but for a simple get-by-id, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. The structure efficiently conveys the tool's function and a chaining opportunity.

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 tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage and output expectations. It could mention error behavior or that it returns a single team, but overall it's complete enough.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding.

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 gets a national team or club by idTeam, listing specific returned fields (name, abbreviation, country, home city, stadium) and distinguishing it from siblings by mentioning chaining to get_stadium.

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 provides clear context: use when you have an idTeam, and hints at chaining to get_stadium. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list helps differentiate.

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