Get Teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific fields returned, which is useful context, but it doesn't mention any behavioral nuances like pagination, ordering, or potential response size. Since annotations carry the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with zero filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded ('All teams in the league'), followed by the returned fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail the return structure. The high-level summary of fields, combined with full schema coverage and annotations for safety, gives an agent everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. Nothing is missing for a straightforward read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (sport, season, league_id) having a clear description and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema is exhaustive.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('teams'), and lists the exact fields returned (id, name, owners, record, waiver rank). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_rosters (which would return roster data) and get_league (which would return league settings). No ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: it returns all teams in the league. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the scope is obvious and it doesn't conflict with any sibling. For a simple read-only getter, this level of guidance is sufficient, though it could have named alternatives for contrast.

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