get_teams

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful ordering context ('ranked by rating') and describes output fields, but it does not mention pagination limits, rate limits, or any other operational behavior beyond the schema-provided page parameter.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by key result attributes. Every word adds value, with 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria: what is listed, how it is ordered, and what details are returned. It omits only minor specifics like total result counts or additional fields, but these are not necessary for basic invocation.

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% for the single 'page' parameter, so the description does not need to restate its meaning. The description provides no additional insight into how the page parameter interacts with the results, which is acceptable given the exhaustive schema description.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('professional teams'), and an ordering criterion ('ranked by rating'), plus key output fields. This cleanly differentiates the plural listing tool from its singular sibling 'get_team', so an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_team or get_team_matches. The intended use case is implied but not stated, and there is no mention of when this tool should be avoided.

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