Get team detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent about the returned content (standings, spelers, tvlijst) and the space-sensitivity of the GUID. It does not discuss errors or response format, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 efficient sentences. The main action is front-loaded, the critical GUID caveat follows immediately, and the output content is summarized without padding.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description names the three main result sections and the input caveat. It could mention absence/error behavior, but the tool is simple and the core calling contract is complete.

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?

Schema already documents team_guid at 100% coverage, but the description adds practical semantics: example value, the fact that GUIDs contain spaces, and the instruction to pass them exactly as returned by get_club. This goes beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of one team by its team GUID.' It also enumerates what the details include (standings, roster, staff), which sets it apart from siblings such as get_club and get_poule_standings.

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?

Clear context: use the team GUID returned by get_club and pass it exactly, with the space caveat. It does not explicitly list exclusions like 'for matches use get_team_matches', but the content list implies when this tool is the right choice.

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