get_mlc_team_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool returns seasons, match count, and hub URL, and lists valid inputs. However, it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss rate limits, permissions, or side effects. The description is adequate but minimal beyond the listed valid values.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's scope, valid inputs, and outputs without any filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: valid inputs and high-level output. It could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., array of seasons) or that it returns all seasons, but it is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 6 valid team slugs, adding crucial semantic meaning to the bare 'teamSlug' string parameter. This prevents guesswork and errors.

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 explicitly names the tool as one of 6 MLC franchises and lists the valid team slugs, clearly distinguishing it from other team profile tools for different leagues (e.g., get_bbl_team_profile, get_psl_team_profile). It also states the return values: seasons, match count, and hub URL.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team_profile or sibling tools for other leagues. The list of valid slugs implies it's for MLC teams, but no direct guidance on choice or exclusion is provided.

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