Teams Get Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload categories, but adds nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its contents arrive immediately.

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 read-only fetch whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is sufficient — it tells the agent what comes back. Only the undocumented team_id format and the absence of any sibling routing leave a minor gap.

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%; 'sport' and 'league' carry examples ('basketball', 'nba, eng.1') but 'team_id' has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter guidance, so it neither compensates for the gap nor improves on the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('fetch') and resource (single team), then enumerates the payload: standing summary, overall record, venue, next scheduled event. This clearly separates it from roster/statistics siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as teams_get_team_statistics, teams_get_team_roster, or teams_list_teams. The agent must infer selection from the payload list alone.

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