get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: that it returns full team information and that the ID originates from get_teams, which is a cross-tool dependency. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return summary, and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It states the purpose, input source, and key return fields. Sibling tool names provide sufficient surrounding context, and the description covers all necessary operational details.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that team_id is an ESPN numeric team ID and providing a concrete example. It also instructs how to obtain the ID (from get_teams), making the single parameter's meaning and source completely clear.

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 tool's purpose: getting details for a specific Premier League team. It lists the returned fields (display name, abbreviation, location) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_teams by requiring a numeric team ID, making the scope and resource 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 provides clear context by instructing to use the numeric ID returned by get_teams, implying the complementary relationship between the two tools. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose and pointer to get_teams offer sufficient practical guidance.

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