formulae: Get teams

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the aggregate statistics included per team (wins, podiums, race starts), which is useful payload context for choosing the tool. It does not cover freshness (which season), pagination, or the full response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the identifying scope ('Formula E') appears immediately. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with no output schema.

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 simple read-only list endpoint with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the sport, the entity, and the key stats returned. It leaves minor gaps around season scoping and full return structure, but nothing that would cause an agent to misuse it.

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?

There is a single optional 'fields' parameter with full schema description coverage ('Keys to keep (comma-separated)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about how or why to project fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 sentence names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Formula E teams'), which disambiguates it from the many other league team endpoints in the sibling list (mlb_get_teams, espn_get_teams, ncaa_get_teams, etc.). It also previews the payload (wins, podiums, race starts). It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent formulae tools such as formulae_get_team_standings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the roster/team list endpoint versus formulae_get_team_standings or formulae_get_championships. No prerequisites, season scoping, or exclusions are given.

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