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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no note on what the seasons represent (year labels vs. internal ids), no caching/freshness or scoping behavior beyond what the schema says.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, so nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a verbosity one.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, making the description minimally viable for a one-parameter lookup. Still, it never clarifies how the returned seasons should be used with related tools (standings, round events), leaving a gap for an agent navigating this family.

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 id parameter already documents itself (Numeric SofaScore unique-tournament id, e.g. 17 for Premier League). The description's word 'competition' loosely ties the id to a competition but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'SofaScore competition season list' names a specific resource (seasons of a competition) and its source, so an agent can roughly infer it returns the season list for a given competition id. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and no differentiation from sibling tools like flashscore_tournament_seasons or sofascore_standings, leaving the exact action implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sofascore_standings, sofascore_round_events, or the Flashscore equivalent. No prerequisites or context for the id lookup are given.

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