espn_get_team_details

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 only states that the tool 'gets' information, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data is cached. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with 13 words. It conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description lists the main outputs (record, stats, venue, next event) but omits other potential details like team name or ID. It does not mention error cases or the need for a team_id from another tool. For a simple read tool with good schema coverage, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage—each parameter (sport, league, team_id) includes a clear description of accepted values. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, making this a baseline score of 3.

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: retrieving detailed information about a specific team, including record, stats, venue, and next event. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team details'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like espn_get_teams (which lists teams) and espn_get_team_schedule (which gets schedule).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as espn_get_team_roster or espn_get_team_schedule. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing a team_id from espn_get_teams) or context for choosing this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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