afl_competitions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as being non-destructive, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the return structure.

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 short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a return example. However, it could be slightly improved by adding parameter explanations in the same concise manner.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination), the description adequately provides the return structure and an example. No output schema exists, so the description compensates. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the output, though it lacks parameter 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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two parameters (page, pageSize). It only shows the return format. The defaults are present in the schema but the description adds no meaning to the parameters.

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 'List all AFL competitions' with specific resources (AFL, AFLW, etc.). The tool name and description align well, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like afl_competition_get.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., afl_competition_get for a single competition). It only describes what it does, not when it is appropriate or when not to use it.

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