get_teams_simple

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing pagination behavior (zero-indexed pages, up to 500 teams per page, increment until empty) and that it returns reduced fields. Annotations already show readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, but description provides operational context. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states purpose and fields, second gives usage guidance and comparison. Front-loaded and no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description covers purpose, fields, pagination, and comparison to sibling. It does not describe the response structure in detail, but the listed fields suffice. Could mention that response is an array of objects with those fields, but not required.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter page_num, including pagination details. The description reinforces that it is a paginated listing but does not add new information beyond the schema for that parameter. It adds contextual value about the tool's lighter nature.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all registered FRC teams with reduced fields and explicitly lists the fields included (key, team_number, nickname, name, city, state_prov, country). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_teams by noting it is lighter and specifying omitted fields.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when website, motto, address, and geocoded location are not needed.' This contrasts with get_teams but does not differentiate from many other team listing siblings (e.g., get_teams_by_year_simple, get_event_teams_simple). Still, it provides clear context for the most common alternative.

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