afl_competition_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return format ('{meta, competitions:[...]}') and explicitly states 'Auth: none needed', which is not covered by the annotations. This goes beyond the minimum and provides useful operational details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. The return type and auth requirement are each given in a short, distinct line, making it highly scannable. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 single-ID lookup tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers the purpose, return structure, and authentication. The schema fully documents the parameter. Minor gaps include potential error behavior (e.g., when ID not found) and the contents of 'meta', but these are not critical given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for broader context.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'competitionId' with a description and example. The tool description only repeats that it uses an integer id, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not compensate further.

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 'Get a single competition by integer id' uses a specific verb (get) with a clear resource and scope (single by integer id), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'afl_competitions_list'. It also provides the expected return shape, removing any ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.

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: you need an integer competition ID, and it returns a single competition. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'afl_competitions_list' or any exclusions. Guidance is only implicit through the word 'single', so it falls short of explicit 'when to use vs when not to use'.

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