get_event_teams_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the behavioral trait of being the 'lightest enumeration', indicating minimal data return. No contradictions exist.

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 two sentences, no superfluous words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action and output format, the second provides context and use case.

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 the single parameter, excellent schema coverage, no output schema required, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, output format, and ideal use case, making it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description for event_key. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists team keys (e.g., 'frc86') for an event, specifying it is the 'lightest enumeration' and ideal for downstream per-team lookups, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that return full team objects (get_event_teams) or simple representations (get_event_teams_simple).

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 explicitly recommends this tool for driving downstream per-team lookups, implying it should be used when only keys are needed, and contrasts with heavier alternatives. It provides clear context for when to use this tool over siblings like get_event_teams or get_event_teams_simple.

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