espn: Get teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set (names, IDs, abbreviations, logos, locations), which is useful, but says nothing about how limit truncates results or whether the list is paginated.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 does partially compensate by enumerating returned fields, which is appropriate. It still omits limit/fields behavior and how to choose this source over the many sibling team endpoints, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter list tool.

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%, so sport and league examples, limit, and fields are already fully documented in the schema. The description only implies league scoping and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List all teams in a league') and scopes it to a league, which is clear enough to invoke. However, it does no sibling differentiation despite many adjacent team-listing tools (mlb_get_teams, ncaa_get_teams, openliga_get_teams, squiggle_get_teams, formulae_get_teams), so an agent must infer ESPN is the right source from the name prefix alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though sportsdb_search_teams and openliga_get_teams cover overlapping ground. The required sport/league pairing is only inferable from the schema, not the description.

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