get_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the return format (numbered list with ID, full name, abbreviation, home city) and the 'active' filter. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaning. It is an excellent example of minimal yet complete writing.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how it fits with sibling tools. The output format is explicitly described, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description bears no burden for explaining parameters. The schema coverage is trivially 100% and thus baseline for zero parameters is 4, which 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all active Premier League teams.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on active teams distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_standings or get_team.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and what to do next: 'Use the ID or abbreviation with get_team to retrieve detailed information about a specific team.' This clearly points to the alternative for more detail.

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