dabble_competitions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses return behavior (filtered by name or sportId, empty if exact name not found), data volume warning (38 MB / 142k rows for bare call), and that sportId lists inactive competitions (~20 for AFL). It lacks authorization or rate limit details, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient. Minor omission prevents a 5.

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 a single dense paragraph of 4-5 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds details and alternatives. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a sample return structure ({status, data:[{id, name, sportId, country}]) and explains filtering behavior. It is missing explicit status codes and error handling, but for a simple lookup tool with only 2 optional parameters, this is adequate. The coverage is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: name is exact and case-sensitive with examples and a counterexample, sportId lists all competitions for a sport including inactive, with approximate count. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool looks up competitions by exact name or lists all competitions for a sport, with specific examples ('NRL', 'Premier League', 'AFL Matches') and explicit distinction from sibling tool dabble_active_competitions. The verb 'look up' and resource 'competitions' are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Provides detailed usage guidance: when to use name (exact, case-sensitive) vs sportId, warns against bare endpoint (firehose), explicitly recommends dabble_active_competitions for currently-bettable comps, and explains edge cases like 'AFL' returning nothing. This fully informs the agent when and when not to use the tool.

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