get_roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns active roster data and the specific player attributes, but does not discuss behavior like pagination or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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: three sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields and prerequisite info, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, return fields, how to obtain the required team_id, and an example. Nothing critical is missing.

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 has no description for team_id (0% coverage), but the tool description fully compensates by explaining team_id is an ESPN numeric team ID and providing a concrete example ('18418' for Atlanta United FC). It also cross-references get_teams as the source. This completely clarifies 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 clearly states the tool gets the active roster for a Women's Super League team, and lists the returned fields (jersey number, name, position, citizenship, age). This verb+resource+scope combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_teams (list teams) or get_team (single team details).

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 usage context by instructing to use the team ID returned by get_teams, and includes an example team ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but for a roster lookup this is sufficient context.

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