sofascore_tournament_seasons

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'credential-free public JSON', indicating no authentication required and a read-only operation. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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: the first could be seen as slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall concise and front-loaded with the key action and result. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output and its usage. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., list of objects with season IDs and names) and potential error cases, which would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter that is well-described in schema. The description adds marginal value by providing context for the output's usage, but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the verb ('returns'), resource ('season list'), and scope ('for a competition'). It distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning the downstream usage with standings and round-events endpoints, providing differentiation from 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?

Explicitly states 'Use a returned season id with the standings and round-events endpoints', giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when the season ID is already known.

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