ncaa_get_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool 'gets' teams, implying a read operation, but omits details about caching, pagination, sorting, error handling, or what happens if no results match. The transparency is minimal.

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, concise sentence of 12 words that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids any extraneous information, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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's simplicity (list retrieval with 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, confirm it returns a list of teams, or mention any potential limitations. More context would be beneficial for complete understanding.

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 already describes all three parameters with examples and definitions (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'NCAA teams' with a specific scope 'in a division, optionally filtered by conference.' It effectively distinguishes this tool from other sports-related siblings like ncaa_get_rankings or ncaa_get_standings by focusing on team retrieval.

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 usage for fetching teams by division and optionally conference, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., espn_get_teams) or when not to use it. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.

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