faceit_searchTeams

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 discloses the GET endpoint and that it returns a list of teams. However, it does not elaborate on potential behaviors like pagination limits beyond schema, caching, or error handling, which would improve transparency.

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 well-structured: purpose, usage guideline, endpoint, parameter list, return type. Each sentence adds value and no information is redundant. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers parameters but lacks details on the output structure beyond 'List of teams.' The agent would benefit from knowing the fields in each team object. Overall, very good but not 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all four parameters with individual descriptions, constraints (e.g., min/max for offset and limit), and types. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Search for teams' and specifies it is for when you have a (possibly partial) team name, distinguishing it from getTeam which requires a team_id. Among siblings, it is clearly the team search tool.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when you only have a (possibly partial) team name. Switch to getTeam once you have the team_id.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an explicit alternative tool.

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