afl_rounds_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (including byes and times) and stating 'Auth: none needed,' which gives useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the schema covers pageSize.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the return format and auth note. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and process.

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?

The description, combined with the annotations and schema, gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It includes the return shape and a clear statement of what is returned, while safety and idempotency are covered by annotations. Minor gaps like pagination defaults are handled in the schema, making this a well-rounded description.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it simply references 'a comp season,' which is already captured in the compSeasonId parameter description.

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 lists rounds for a comp season, including byes and start/end times. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name aligns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like afl_compseason_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage by identifying the resource ('rounds for a comp season') but provides no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The note about auth is minor and does not help with tool selection. It is adequate but not explicit.

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