get_psl_team_profile

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states what data is returned and what is excluded. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid slug), idempotency, or side effects. The transparency is high for a read operation but not complete.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value: specifying return fields, listing slugs, and clarifying scope.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return fields. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand inputs and outputs without gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'teamSlug' as 'PSL franchise slug e.g. karachi-kings, lahore-qalandars'. The description adds the list of slugs but does not significantly enhance the schema's semantics; thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool 'Returns franchise name, seasons played, match count, and canonical URL' for 'One of the PSL franchises'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by flagging it does NOT return BBL/IPL data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage from the context of PSL franchises and lists valid slugs. It excludes BBL/IPL but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over other profile tools like get_team_profile or compare_players. The guidance is good but lacks explicit alternatives or conditions.

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