fpl_team_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a 'get' operation, implying a read, but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action, though it omits necessary detail, making it efficient in structure but lacking substance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what information is returned, but it does not. It also fails to clarify whether 'team' means an FPL squad, a real-world club, or something else, and gives no indication of data complexity or size. For a simple tool with one parameter, the missing return details make it incomplete.

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%—the team_id parameter is already described as 'The ID of the team to get information about'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a team'. It distinguishes from player-focused siblings (e.g., fpl_get_player_information) by specifying 'team' as the object, but does not elaborate on what specific team information is provided, making it slightly generic.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description provides no context for selection among the many sibling tools that also retrieve data.

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