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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the result is the complete set of competitions and that each entry includes code, country, and type. For a zero-parameter reference list, this is sufficient.

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 compact sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the important usage note about the `wettbewerb` code placed second. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters, a simple read-only reference-list purpose, and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: what is returned and how the returned code is used elsewhere. Nothing material is missing.

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 no input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the entries contain instead of describing nonexistent 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 states a specific resource (all competitions predicted by Prorakel), enumerates the categories covered (leagues, cups, European cups), and names the returned fields (code, country, type). This clearly distinguishes it from the match- and standings-oriented sibling tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining that the returned code is used as `wettbewerb` in the other tools, which is exactly what an agent needs to know. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different resources rather than being direct substitutes.

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