get_team_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the return fields (opponent, date, score if played, status) and the scope (current season, all matches). This goes beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing pagination or possible edge cases like cancelations.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second summarizes the response content, and the Args line gives parameter semantics. No sentence is wasted, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, clear annotations), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, which team it applies to, and how to specify the team. There is no notable gap for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 only provides 'team_id' as a required string with no description, leaving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that it expects an ESPN numeric team ID and provides a concrete example ('18418' for Atlanta United FC). This gives the agent exact guidance for supplying the parameter.

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 all matches for a single MLS team in the current season.' This clearly identifies both the action and the scope, differentiating it from siblings like get_match_details (single match) and get_scoreboard (general scoreboard). It also enumerates what is included (scheduled, in-progress, completed) without ambiguity.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when you need all matches for one MLS team in the current season. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools and the tool's name make the intended use obvious. A score of 5 would require explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, which is absent.

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