entitysport_competitions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the response shape is unverified and that an ENTITYSPORT_TOKEN is required for auth. This provides useful context about reliability and access, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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 organized into concise sections: purpose, return shape, verification note, example, and auth. It front-loads the core information and includes essential warnings without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description provides a return shape, an example, a reliability warning, and auth details. It covers the key operational aspects, though the unverified shape leaves some uncertainty.

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 describes all three parameters (paged, status, per_page) with clear descriptions. The example for status adds a sample value but does not fundamentally extend the schema's meaning. With 100% schema coverage, 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 'Competitions and tours.' with a returned item shape implies a list operation, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. It distinguishes from siblings primarily by the tool name rather than a clear statement of its action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative competitions tools. The example `{"status": "live"}` demonstrates a filter but provides no context for selection among siblings or exclusions.

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