get_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that it returns a numbered list, the exact fields (ID, full name, abbreviation, home city), and that it only includes active teams—context not present in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and cross-reference. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (0 params), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the next step for detailed lookup.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters and doesn't.

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 'Get all active USL Super League teams' with a specific verb (get), resource (teams), and scope (active, USL Super League). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_team by explaining that get_team is for detailed information on a specific 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?

The description explicitly directs users to use get_team with the ID or abbreviation for detailed info, providing a clear alternative and indicating when to choose this list tool. It implies a workflow: first call get_teams to obtain IDs/abbreviations, then call get_team.

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