sportsdb_search_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the data source, and it says nothing about result behavior such as exact-match versus fuzzy search, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and resource appear immediately. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool.

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 tool is simple and the schema plus annotations cover most behavioral context. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the search returns or whether matches are exact, the description is adequate but leaves some relevant gaps.

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 single 'team' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Team name to search for', and the description merely restates that it searches by team name. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra syntax or matching semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('sports team'), and source ('TheSportsDB'), so it is clearly distinguishable from non-team siblings like sportsdb_search_player and sportsdb_leagues. It does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the intended usage context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against related tools such as sportsdb_team_events. For a simple search endpoint this is minimally adequate, though an agent must infer the routing.

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