resolve_team_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool 'Returns top matches', indicating multiple results, but does not disclose behavior for no matches, casing sensitivity, or the meaning of 'top'. The output schema exists but was not provided, so the description partially compensates.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a key behavioral note ('top matches'). No superfluous 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it is still lacking: it does not mention the limit parameter, success/failure behavior, or what constitutes 'top matches'. For a simple lookup tool, more context would improve usability.

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 description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by indicating it can be a team name, city, or nickname. However, the 'limit' parameter (default 5) is not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, this is moderate but insufficient for full clarity.

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: 'Resolve team name/city/nickname to team_id'. It uses a specific verb-resource structure and distinguishes itself clearly from the sibling tool 'resolve_player_id', which resolves player identifiers.

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 implies the use case (when a team name, city, or nickname is known and the ID is needed), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'resolve_player_id' or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are provided.

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