get_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (ID, name, head coach) and the dependency on flight_id from another tool, which helps the agent understand data flow.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, front-loading the main purpose and return values.

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 a simple list tool with an output schema (implied), the description fully covers what is returned and how to chain with related tools. No gaps remain for the agent's selection and 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 input schema has one parameter (flight_id) with 0% coverage. The description adds crucial meaning: 'Flight ID from get_event_overview.' This tells the agent where to source the parameter, compensating for the schema gap.

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 (teams competing in a flight) and specifies the returned fields (ID, name, head coach). It distinguishes from sibling tools by linking to get_event_overview and get_team_schedule.

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 explains when to use this tool (to get teams for a flight) and tells the agent to obtain flight_id from get_event_overview. It also suggests using a team ID with get_team_schedule, providing clear context and chaining.

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