sm_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool outputs team IDs and has multiple modes, but it fails to mention pagination behavior (despite a page parameter), response structure, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read-like tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences and gets straight to the point: what the tool does and an important note about team IDs. No wasted words, front-loaded the key information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, this description is too brief. It lacks details on mode-parameter mappings, output format, pagination, and usage context. It provides only a high-level purpose, which is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 7 parameters but only 14% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond listing mode options. It does not clarify that by_id requires id, by_country requires countryId, or what searchQuery does, leaving the agent to infer relationships. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 purpose ('Get football teams') and lists the supported modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools by noting that it returns team IDs used across all endpoints. However, it does not explain what each mode does beyond its name, which prevents a perfect score.

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 phrase 'Returns team IDs used across all endpoints' implies this is the tool to use when you need team IDs for other API calls, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it falls short of a high score.

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