get_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces and extends this by stating 'Requires an imported snapshot or loaded demo' and 'This tool does not fetch new data or change saved state,' adding contextual prerequisites and confirming the non-mutating behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites, return content, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler. It is a model of concise, effective writing.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema (so return format is already defined), and strong annotations covering safety, the description fully covers prerequisites, behavioral constraints, and return content. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it appropriately lists the information returned, which is useful for the agent. No gap exists.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'the selected team's roster from the saved snapshot.' It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it does not fetch new data or change saved state, and it names specific alternatives for other operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use recommend_lineup to calculate a lineup or get_source_status to check observation freshness.' It also clarifies the prerequisite of an imported snapshot or loaded demo, giving the agent clear context for invocation.

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