Teams Get Team Roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are grouped by position and include injury/coaching data, which is useful behavioral context, but omits anything about refresh timing, data source, or limitations.

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 no filler; the resource and its contents are stated immediately. Slightly dense but every clause adds concrete information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the primary returned fields (jersey numbers, experience, position abbreviations, coaching staff). It is reasonably complete, though it could note the response grouping format more explicitly.

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%, with sport and league carrying brief examples ('basketball', 'nba, eng.1') and team_id undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('team roster'), plus concrete contents (injury designations, jersey numbers, experience, coaching staff). This clearly separates it from siblings like teams_get_team_statistics or teams_get_team_depth_chart, though it never names those siblings.

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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives like teams_get_team_depth_chart, teams_get_team_statistics, or teams_get_team. No prerequisites or context are provided; the agent must infer usage entirely.

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