ncaa: 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 and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the division/conference scoping context but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what a team record contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and both scope qualifiers appear immediately.

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 read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks sibling differentiation and any hint about result shape or pagination, which matters given how many similar 'get teams' tools exist.

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 each of the four parameters is documented in-schema (sport, division, conference_id, fields). The description only echoes the division and conference semantics, adding no format or example beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 (get) and resource (NCAA teams) with the scoping dimension (division) and optional filter (conference). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other team-listing siblings (espn_get_teams, mlb_get_teams, formulae_get_teams), relying on 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., conference_id not being required), and no routing to alternative team tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'optionally'.

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