flashscore_tournament_seasons

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the only behavioral signal. It explicitly frames the operation as read-only ('Lists') and 'public', and it discloses that results contain results_path and fixtures_path. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but those are not critical for a simple public list 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 definition is compact and scannable, with the core action and routing in three short sentences. The opening fragment 'Flashscore tournament archive seasons' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but it does not detract from usability.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call chain: how to discover the input path, what the tool returns (seasons, winners, results_path, fixtures_path), and where to pass the returned paths next. No critical information for invoking it correctly 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 schema already documents the single path parameter and its '/archive/' suffix at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where to discover valid archive paths ('flashscore-navigation or flashscore-competitions'), going beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the seasons and winners from a public competition archive page.' It also disambiguates itself from the flashscore event/standings siblings by limiting scope to archive seasons and routing output to flashscore-tournament-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?

It tells the agent where to get the required path ('Discover archive paths through flashscore-navigation or flashscore-competitions') and what to do with the results ('passed to flashscore-tournament-events'). It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the upstream/downstream guidance makes the intended call chain clear.

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