afl_compseason_get

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape, which is valuable for an agent to anticipate the response. This goes well beyond the structured data.

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 main action. The return block and auth note are directly useful and contain no redundancy. 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (single parameter, read-only, getter), the description is complete: it covers the return structure, auth requirement, and the distinguishing 'embeds full rounds array'. No output schema exists, so the described return shape helps fill that gap.

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 provides a complete description for compSeasonId, including an example and note that it's part of the URL path. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and specific resource ('single comp season'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by noting it embeds the full rounds array and currentRoundNumber. This distinguishes it from list-style tools like afl_compseasons_list or afl_rounds_list.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving a specific comp season by ID, and the mention of embedded rounds implies use cases where round data is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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