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 disclose two real behavioral traits: a 3-character alphanumeric minimum and that the country filter is applied client-side (so results may not be server-filtered). It omits return shape, result caps, matching semantics (prefix vs substring, case sensitivity), and error behavior below the minimum.

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 compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and clarifications in a trailing parenthetical. No wasted words, though the client-side note would read better as its own short clause.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must orient the agent, yet it never says what a result looks like or how many come back. For a simple two-parameter search it is adequate, but the return contract is left entirely unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'query' matches team names with a minimum of 3 alphanumeric characters (adding 'alphanumeric' beyond the schema's minLength) and that 'country' is a client-side filter rather than a server-side constraint. Both parameters get meaning beyond their bare types.

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 and resource ("Search teams by name"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like team_stats or search_leagues. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource noun does the disambiguating work.

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 implied by "search teams by name" and the minimum-length rule hints at how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to a sibling for related lookups.

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