get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the league (USL Super League), the return contents (display name, abbreviation, location), and the ESPN ID source. No contradictions with annotations.

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: two short paragraphs with the purpose first, then return highlights, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple read operation with strong annotations, an output schema, and a single parameter. The description covers the league, the specific-team scope, the parameter format/source, and expected return fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema provides no description for team_id (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by specifying the parameter is an 'ESPN numeric team ID', giving a concrete example ('18418' for Atlanta United FC), and pointing to get_teams as the source.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Get details for a specific USL Super League team.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_teams by emphasizing 'specific' and referencing the numeric team ID.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Use the numeric ID returned by get_teams.' This establishes when to use this tool and ties it directly to its listing sibling. It does not enumerate exclusions for other sibling tools, but the 'specific team' framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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