Get Team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and details exactly what is returned: owner, record, points_for/against, and roster rows with specific fields. It also discloses flexible lookup behavior including case-insensitive names, abbreviations, and unique partial names.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary, followed by practical usage contextchers, then parameter semanticsholas, and finally return-shape details. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant filler is present.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to resolve the parameter, and the exact return fields. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the team parameter accepts an ID from get_standings or get_matchup, or a name/abbreviation, and clarifies case-insensitivity and unique partial-name matching. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare anyOf schema.

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: retrieving another league team's roster with record, points, and players with current-week projections. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_my_team by specifying 'another' and directly referencing get_my_team's shape.

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?

Provides explicit use cases such as trade targets, 'who has the most RBs', and 'what does Lucas's team look like'. It also tells where to get team IDs from (get_standings or get_matchup), but does not explicitly contrast when to use get_my_team instead.

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