espn_team_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about ESPN coverage gaps, failure modes for invalid team IDs, or rate/availability behavior.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. But its brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is room to add the missing guidance without bloat.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description carries the burden of explaining return shape and input formats; it explains neither. Combined with the huge sibling list of overlapping sports tools, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across all three required parameters (sport, league, team_id), so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied. It offers no formats or examples — e.g. whether sport is 'football'/'basketball', what league slugs look like ('nfl', 'eng.1'), or whether team_id is numeric or a slug.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Get team information from ESPN'), so the general intent is clear. But it does not say what 'team information' contains (roster, record, venue, branding) nor how it differs from siblings like sportsdb_search_team or nba_teams.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus the many other team/sports tools in the sibling list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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