Team maker

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-open-world, and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds key operational facts: crypto-random shuffle, optional seed reproducibility, skill averaging for unskilled people, and hard limits of 2000 people/100 teams. It does not describe error handling or output shape, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose, sizing modes, balancing, naming, and constraints. It includes a web URL that is not essential to tool invocation, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 an eight-parameter tool with all-optional inputs and no output schema, the description covers the important input semantics and limits. It leaves the exact return shape implicit and does not address invalid input handling, but annotations and schema cover safety and parameter definitions.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by showing skill syntax ('Ali, 5' / 'Sara: 3'), explaining how missing skills are treated, and clarifying naming options. It does not deeply cover every parameter such as text, balance, or customNames fallback, so 4.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and output: 'Split a list of people into fair random teams.' It also immediately scopes the two sizing modes, making the tool's purpose distinct from single-pick random tools.

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 description establishes the use case and explains the two sizing modes, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools like random_pick or secret_santa_draw. Usage is implied rather than guided with exclusions or alternatives.

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