get_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation and enumerates some return fields, but it does not disclose potential absence of data, error behavior, or any authentication requirements. The listed fields add some context beyond the tool name.

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?

One compact sentence with a parenthetical list that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and expected return contents. It omits edge cases like not-found behavior or exact JSON structure, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the team_id parameter is already well explained with a source hint ('from get_teams, pro match rows, or get_pro_players'). The tool description adds no additional meaning regarding the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one professional team's profile) with a concrete field list (rating, wins/losses, logo, tags). The singular 'one' clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_teams, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_teams, get_team_matches, or get_team_players. The phrase 'one professional team' implies a need for a specific team_id, but no direct comparison or exclusion conditions are offered.

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