espn_team_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits like data freshness, error handling (e.g., invalid team_id), or whether it requires authentication. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it fails to include necessary details. While it avoids verbosity, it does not earn its place by providing sufficient information for the agent.

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 three required string parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It should explain what team information includes, provide parameter guidance, and disclose any limitations.

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 0% description coverage for its three parameters (sport, league, team_id), and the description adds no additional meaning. The agent is left to infer valid values, formats, and examples, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 'Get team information from ESPN' clearly states the verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling ESPN tools like scores or news by focusing on 'team information'. However, it does not specify what aspects of team information are included (e.g., roster, statistics).

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 score tools or other sports data tools. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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