get_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that only active teams are returned and that the output is a numbered list with specific fields, which goes beyond the annotation-only information.

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 three short sentences. The first states the action, the second the return format, the third provides a usage pointer. No filler or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 list endpoint, this description is complete. It covers what is returned (ID, name, abbreviation, home city), notes the 'active' filter, and directs traffic to get_team for follow-up. With full annotations and an output schema present, no additional behavioral details are necessary.

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 takes no parameters, so the description rightly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description correctly focuses on output and usage.

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 function: 'Get all active Women's Super League teams.' It specifies the resource (teams), scope (all active, WSL), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_team by positioning this as the list-all tool and directing users to use get_team for 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?

It gives explicit guidance to use the returned ID or abbreviation with get_team for detailed info, providing a clear alternative. It doesn't discuss exclusions for other sibling tools, but for a simple list-fetching tool this context is sufficient.

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