Teams Search

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 that results carry IDs/metadata for downstream calls, which is useful context, but it omits result-count limits, the effect of the default type filter, or match 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the second sentence adding genuinely useful downstream-call context. No filler, though not maximally information-dense for a 3-param tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool: required query is implied, and annotations carry the safety profile. But with no output schema and 0% param coverage, the hidden type default and result-shaping behavior go unexplained, which matters for an entity-index search feeding other tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It gestures at 'athletes, teams, or leagues' (loosely the type filter) but never names the type or limit parameters or their defaults (type='player', limit=5), leaving a hidden default that will silently mislead callers.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: 'Search ESPN's entity index by name for athletes, teams, or leagues.' This distinguishes it as the only lookup/discovery tool among get_* siblings without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with teams_list_teams, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the workflow ('Returns IDs, display names, and metadata needed to call other tools'), which signals this is a prerequisite lookup step. However, it never states when to prefer this over teams_list_teams or how to resolve ambiguity, so usage is only implied rather than guided.

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