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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ids are federation-specific and therefore must be taken from this response rather than constructed. It does not describe response shape, but an output schema exists so that is not required.

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 sentences, no filler, and the return-content statement comes first followed by the workflow constraints. The first sentence is long due to the German domain terms, but each clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema, two annotations and full schema coverage, the only thing left for the description to supply is workflow context, and it does exactly that: what to call before, what to pass the ids into, and why the ids cannot be guessed.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the competition_type enumeration and the season format. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond naming the three inputs; it does not explain the default or the competition_type codes. Baseline 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?

A specific verb and resource: returns team types, the leagues (Spielklassen) under each, and the areas (Gebiete) under each league for a federation/season/competition type. The hierarchy is spelled out and it is clearly distinguished from fussballde_filters and fussballde_competitions.

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?

Explicit routing: use this tool to source team type/league/area ids, use fussballde_filters for valid federation and season values, and use fussballde_competitions to turn a league into competition ids. An agent knows both the prerequisite and the downstream call without inference.

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