afl_competition_compseasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return structure ({meta, compSeasons:[...]}) and clarifying that no authentication is needed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return format and auth requirement. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy. Three short lines cover what is needed.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with two parameters, full schema coverage, and beneficial annotations. The description includes the return shape and auth requirement, making it largely complete. It does not explain pagination behavior, but pageSize parameter implies this and is documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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%: competitionId and pageSize both have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaningful extra context beyond the schema; it only restates the resource. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' and resource 'comp seasons within one competition', clearly scoping the tool to a single competition. This inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like afl_compseasons_list, which likely lists all comp seasons. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when you need comp seasons for a specific competition and notes that competitionId comes from afl_competitions_list, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like afl_compseasons_list, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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