nhl: Get team roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the return composition (forwards, defensemen, goalies with jersey numbers and positions), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about defaulting season behavior or data freshness.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 roster tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs, and its mention of the returned position groups partially substitutes for the missing output schema. It only lacks guidance on alternatives and season defaulting.

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 all three parameters (team_abbrev, season, fields) are already documented in the schema with examples and patterns. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 ("Get the roster for an NHL team") and names the domain, so it is distinguishable from mlb_get_team_roster and espn_get_team_roster by scope. It does not, however, contrast itself against those functionally similar siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance: nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over nhl_get_team_stats, nhl_get_team_schedule, or espn_get_team_roster. The use case is only implied by the tool name.

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