Search teams and competitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it disclose how matches are returned (e.g., list vs. single result, behavior on no match, potential multiple candidates). The phrase 'resolve into stable IDs' implies output is IDs, but lacks explicit safety or result structure details.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place; it is concise without sacrificing critical information.

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 search tool, the description covers the core purpose and usage direction. However, without an output schema, it should clarify the response format (e.g., whether it returns a list of candidate IDs with names or a single exact match) and handle edge cases like no results. It implicitly promises IDs but leaves the agent guessing about how to select from potential matches.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'q' with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds the context of 'free-text' resolution but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'free-text team or competition name' into 'stable FootballStack IDs'. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as a prerequisite ('Use this before any tool that takes a competition or team'), so an agent understands its unique role versus data-returning siblings like footballstack_matches or footballstack_standings.

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?

Provides direct usage timing: 'Use this before any tool that takes a competition or team, instead of guessing an ID.' This explicitly states when to use the tool and warns against the alternative (guessing IDs), which is a clear exclusion. No ambiguity about its role in the workflow.

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