afl_ladders_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the return format, which are useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and it clarifies that the data reflects up to the current round (i.e., changes over time).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return type line, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant fluff. The example is particularly useful for demonstrating the parameter usage.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, provides the return shape, shows an example call, and states auth requirements. Given the strong annotations and schema coverage, no additional context is necessary. It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter compSeasonId, with a thorough explanation (competition-season id, not calendar year, required). The description only shows an example value (85) without adding new semantics. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 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 the tool returns a competition ladder for a specific AFL competition season up to the current round. It uses a specific verb+resource, and the return structure is explicitly outlined. It distinguishes itself from sibling AFL tools by focusing on ladder data as opposed to matches, teams, or seasons.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the current or in-progress ladder for a competition season. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but it provides clear context through the example and the 'up to a comp season's current round' qualifier. No misleading guidance is present.

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