Search teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the return shape (team ids plus competing competition) and the ordering caveat ('newest seasons first is not guaranteed'). However, it says nothing about matching semantics (partial vs exact name), result caps, pagination, or auth requirements that matter for a global search.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the scope and result contents front-loaded before the ordering caveat.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and return contents, which is nearly enough; only result limits and match semantics are left unstated.

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 100% and the single 'query' parameter already has an example ('Tyresö'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that matching is by team/club name across the whole corpus, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Search ... for teams by name') and the scope ('all of Profixio'), which an agent can distinguish from the list_*/get_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the wording suggests this is the lookup path when you need a team id, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no statement about what to do when a team is already known via another sibling.

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