afl_compseasons_list

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape (meta.pagination and compSeasons fields) and stating 'Auth: none needed'. It also specifies the data range 2012–present. These details complement the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence, one return-shape line, and one auth line. Every part is essential and there is no filler.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, date range, return structure, and auth. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the return fields.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both page and pageSize, including defaults. The description adds no extra parameter-level information, so baseline 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 clearly states 'List comp seasons across all competitions' with a specific verb and resource, and adds a date range (2012–present). This distinguishes it from siblings like afl_compseason_get and afl_competition_compseasons.

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 implies this is the global listing tool by saying 'across all competitions'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., afl_competition_compseasons for a single competition) or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full 5.

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