afl_competitions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context by showing the return structure ({meta, competitions}), stating 'Auth: none needed' and giving a concrete example, which goes beyond annotations.

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: one sentence for purpose, a single line for return shape, an example, and auth note. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 paginated list tool, the description is complete enough. It provides the return shape, an example invocation, and auth requirements. The schema and annotations cover safety and parameters, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 both page and pageSize having descriptions, defaults, and constraints, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description's example with pageSize adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides.

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 starts with 'List all AFL competitions', which is a specific verb and resource, and gives concrete examples (AFL, AFLW, VFL, SANFL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like afl_competition_get and similar lists from other sports.

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 clearly states what the tool does ('List all AFL competitions') and provides an example with pageSize, making the context obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives like afl_competition_get, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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