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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: opens a browser window (interactive UI), uses OAuth flow, and supports credential sources. However, it lacks details about what happens after authentication (token storage, session duration), error handling, or whether this is a one-time setup vs recurring operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose and mechanism. The second explains credential sources. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the environment variable names for clarity.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'how' but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what successful authentication enables (access to other tools), what the output looks like, error scenarios, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of OAuth flows, more context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters as optional credentials. The description adds value by explaining the environment variable alternatives (TEAMSNAP_CLIENT_ID, TEAMSNAP_CLIENT_SECRET) and clarifying these are OAuth credentials. This provides context beyond the schema's basic descriptions, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Authenticate with TeamSnap' using OAuth login. It specifies the authentication method (browser-based OAuth) which distinguishes it from other authentication approaches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'teamsnap_auth_status' which likely checks authentication status rather than initiating it.

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 implies when to use this tool (when authentication is needed) and mentions alternative credential sources (environment variables vs arguments). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., if already authenticated) or clearly differentiate from 'teamsnap_auth_status' for checking existing authentication.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns authentication status and user info, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or other operational traits, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and follow with return details. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete by stating what it does and what it returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of user info), slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check') and resources ('TeamSnap authentication status'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on authentication status rather than data retrieval or authentication actions like 'teamsnap_auth' or 'teamsnap_logout'.

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 implies usage context by mentioning it returns 'whether you are connected and user info if authenticated,' suggesting it's used to verify authentication state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'teamsnap_auth' for initiating authentication or other data tools that might require authentication.

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

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 states what data is retrieved but doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by sibling tools), rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a read operation in an API context, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly implies a read-only action without contradiction.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving structured availability data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is fetched but misses important context like authentication needs, response structure, and error cases. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but insufficient for reliable agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'event_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get availability responses for an event' with specific details about what it shows ('who is available, unavailable, or hasn't responded'). It distinguishes from siblings like teamsnap_get_event or teamsnap_get_events by focusing on availability data rather than general event information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first via teamsnap_auth), nor does it clarify if this should be used before or after getting event details with teamsnap_get_event. There's no explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool suggestions, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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 states the tool retrieves information but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for a tool that likely requires authentication (based on sibling tools like 'teamsnap_auth'). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'event_id' clearly documented as 'The TeamSnap event ID'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific event'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'teamsnap_get_events' (which likely lists multiple events), leaving room for ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'teamsnap_get_events' for listing events or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves events with optional date filtering, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination or rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and key functionality (filtering). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and well-structured without any wasted text.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering option, but lacks details on authentication needs, response format, error handling, or sibling tool distinctions. With no annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (team_id, start_date, end_date), including format details for dates. The description adds marginal value by mentioning optional date range filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as how filtering works or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('events for a team') with examples of event types ('games, practices, etc.'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'teamsnap_get_event' (singular), which might retrieve a single event, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by date range, which suggests when to use this tool for date-based queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'teamsnap_get_event' or 'teamsnap_list_teams', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication, leaving usage context partially implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data (member names, jersey numbers, etc.), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or data format specifics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and resource, and the second specifies the return data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. No extraneous information is included.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return data, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or sibling tool relationships. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior would improve completeness, but it meets the minimum for a simple read operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'team_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain the team ID or validate it). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the roster (players and coaches) for a team.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('roster'), and scope ('for a team'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'teamsnap_get_team' or 'teamsnap_get_events'. The mention of returned data (names, jersey numbers, etc.) adds clarity, but sibling distinction is not addressed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'teamsnap_get_team' for team details vs. roster), or specify contexts like needing a team ID first. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

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 but offers minimal information. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., team metadata, members, settings), whether it requires authentication (implied by sibling tools like 'teamsnap_auth'), or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or how it differs from sibling tools beyond the obvious resource focus. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about proper invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'team_id' documented as 'The TeamSnap team ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific team'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'teamsnap_list_teams' by specifying retrieval of a single team's details rather than listing multiple teams. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations like 'teamsnap_get_event' or 'teamsnap_get_roster' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare it to 'teamsnap_list_teams' for scenarios where the team ID is unknown, or indicate when other get tools might be more appropriate. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data (team names, IDs, etc.) but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 concise sentences: one stating the action and scope, another detailing the return data. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return data, yet without annotations or output schema, it misses behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format details. For a list tool, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps in context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids discussing non-existent inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 the action ('List all TeamSnap teams') and resource ('teams'), specifying it returns team names, IDs, sport, division, and season info. It distinguishes from siblings like 'teamsnap_get_team' (singular) by indicating it lists all accessible teams, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-like tools (e.g., 'teamsnap_get_events' for events).

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 implies usage when needing to list all accessible teams, with 'you have access to' suggesting permission-based filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'teamsnap_get_team' for a specific team or other sibling tools, leaving context somewhat inferred rather than stated.

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

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 describes the action ('Disconnect and clear stored credentials'), which implies a destructive operation that removes authentication data. However, it lacks details on effects like whether this logs out all sessions, requires re-authentication for subsequent calls, or has any side effects on other tools.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Disconnect from TeamSnap') and adds necessary context ('clear stored credentials'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool's complexity (simple logout with 0 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or what happens post-logout. For a destructive operation, more context would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it compensates by not introducing unnecessary information.

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 the specific action ('Disconnect from TeamSnap') and the resource affected ('stored credentials'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like teamsnap_auth or teamsnap_auth_status which handle authentication rather than disconnection. It uses precise verbs and identifies exactly what gets cleared.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'clear stored credentials,' suggesting it should be used when ending a session or revoking access. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like teamsnap_auth_status for checking auth state, or provide exclusions for when not to use it.

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