Teams Search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it searches an index by name and returns IDs, display names, and metadata needed for other tools. This is useful added context beyond the structured annotations, with no contradiction.

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 purpose followed by return details. Every word earns its place and the size is appropriate for a simple search 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?

No output schema exists, so describing the returned IDs, names, and metadata is helpful. However, with three undocumented parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent remains unclear on how to set 'type' and 'limit', leaving a meaningful gap in parameter usage.

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%. The description hints that 'query' is a name and that results can be an athlete, team, or league, but it never names the 'type' or 'limit' parameters, their defaults, or accepted values. It does not compensate for the complete lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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 'Search' and resource 'ESPN's entity index', plus what can be found (athlete ID, team ID, league). Clear purpose, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get/list tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explains that the tool is used to find IDs needed to call other tools, giving a clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the intended use case is evident.

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