get_roster

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying the return fields and clarifying that it returns the active roster only. It does not cover edge cases like invalid team IDs, but that is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, return fields in the second, prerequisite in the third, and a single-parameter Args block. There is no superfluous content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, parameter semantics, and prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates with an Args section explaining team_id as an ESPN numeric team ID with an example. However, the example ('18418' for Atlanta United FC) conflicts with the stated Premier League context, making it slightly misleading.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the active roster for an Premier League team.' It then enumerates the returned fields (jersey number, name, position, citizenship, age), clearly distinguishing it from sibling team-related tools like get_team or 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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: use the team ID returned by get_teams. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as get_players, so it stops short of a 5.

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