apisports_football_leagues

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the need for an API key, warns that the returned shape is unverified and approximate, and explains the significance of coverage. It also notes plan restrictions via the schema, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, auth. Every section adds necessary information without verbosity. The shape block is long but essential given no output schema.

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 list tool without an output schema, the description covers the return shape, coverage guidance, example usage, and auth requirements. It lacks pagination or rate-limit details, but these are not critical for this read-only discovery tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 4 parameters already have clear meanings. The description adds a concrete example with country and mentions 'FREE PLANS are restricted to a few older seasons' in the schema, but doesn't provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Football leagues and cups worldwide, with the seasons available on your plan.' This specifies the resource (leagues/cups) and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fixtures, standings, and teams by noting that coverage tells you which tools will return data.

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 as a discovery tool: 'coverage matters: it tells you which of the tools below will actually return anything for that league.' This provides context for when to use it before calling other apisports tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives.

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