Search NBA Teams

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool searches across specific fields, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but does not detail return format or edge cases.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous words. Every element adds value and is clearly front-loaded.

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 a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and ample annotation coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and what fields it searches, though it could mention the output structure or behavior on no 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single query parameter. The description compensates by listing the fields that can be matched (name, city, abbreviation, slug, team id), but does not specify whether the search is exact or fuzzy, or how results are ordered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some meaning but is not fully comprehensive.

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 'Search' and the resource 'NBA teams'. It lists multiple searchable fields (name, city, abbreviation, slug, team id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nba_search_players that search for players.

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 implies usage for looking up teams by various identifiers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the list of searchable fields and sibling tool names provide implicit context.

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