list_team_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read-only list of public submissions, which is useful. However, it does not cover auth requirements, pagination, error behavior, or what happens for an invalid/private team ID.

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. The verb, object, and qualifier are all in the correct order.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, this is barely adequate: an agent can infer the call shape, but with no output schema, no pagination behavior, and no parameter details, there are clear gaps. The description would need at least one more sentence about the response or the team_id to be fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema's team_id description is empty. The description only echoes the parameter name ('team ID') without explaining its format, how to obtain it, or which team scope it refers to. For a low-coverage schema, the description fails to compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public submissions') and correctly identifies the key parameter ('team ID'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_competition_submissions.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_competition_submissions, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual signal is 'public,' but no alternative is named.

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