All fantasy teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description does not contradict these and adds the output fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or dependencies beyond what annotations provide, and it does not address the openWorldHint implication (e.g., reliance on external data). The description is consistent but adds limited behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and specific output fields. The second sentence adds a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the fields returned (team_id, name, abbreviation, record, points for/against, division), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It also covers the intended use case. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but for a list of all teams this is likely not critical. The description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including explanations of optional year and leagueId with default behavior. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for parameters, so it correctly relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden and the description does not enhance it.

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 'List' and the resource 'every fantasy team' with specific fields (team_id, name, abbreviation, record, points for/against, division). It also notes a specific use case (translating team names to teamId), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_standings that might also return records. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to translate a user-typed team name into a numeric teamId required by other tools. This gives clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario. Slight deduction for not naming alternatives directly.

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