Teams List Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating returned fields (IDs, names, abbreviations, locations, colors), though it omits pagination or invalid-input 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by a concise return-field list. No redundant or filler text.

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 two-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it covers scope, required inputs, and return fields. Minor omissions like pagination or invalid-input handling are not critical for tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema provides examples for both required parameters ('basketball', 'nba, eng.1'). The description restates the sport/league scope but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('all active teams') with scope qualifiers ('in a given sport and league'). It distinguishes itself from 'teams_get_team' (single team) and 'teams_search' (query-based) by promising all active teams for a sport/league, though it does not name those siblings 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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like teams_search or teams_get_team. The phrase 'in a given sport and league' implies the required context, but an agent still must infer when this list is preferable to other team-related tools.

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