get-team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid team abbreviations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a context with many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how it differs from other team-related tools, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool in this rich ecosystem, more context is needed to guide proper 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter teamAbbrev fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'information about an NHL team', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on general team information rather than specific data like stats, roster, or schedule. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is included (e.g., basic details, history, or current status).

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 versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like get-team-stats, get-team-roster, and get-team-prospects, there's no indication whether this tool provides basic team metadata, comprehensive information, or something else. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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