Team page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the output content in detail, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has no side effects. For a retrieval tool this is acceptable, but additional behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, any rate limits) would improve transparency.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One team in a league season') and then enumerates the major output components. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of summarizing the returned data (table row, match log, goal-timing bins, etc.). It covers the main aspects of the response. However, it does not describe the structure or format of the output, which would be helpful for parsing. Overall, it is fairly complete for a retrieval 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?

All three parameters have thorough descriptions in the input schema, including examples and references to other tools (e.g., 'see get_league_table / list of teams' for team slug). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it does not add value here.

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 clearly states the tool returns data for a single team in a league season, listing specific outputs: table row, full match log with details, goal-timing bins, first-goal distribution, and per-team stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_league_table (which returns all teams) or get_match (single match).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool (e.g., get_league_table for a list, get_fixtures for upcoming matches) would be more appropriate. The sibling tools are listed in context but no usage differentiation is given.

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