footballdataorg_areas

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

The description adds useful caveats beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, notably that the return shape is unverified and should be inspected before relying on field names. However, it contains serious internal contradictions: the return shape is labeled 'VERIFIED (272 areas)' while a NOTE declares it has 'NOT been verified against a live response,' and auth is both 'works without a key' and 'needs your own key.' These contradictions actively undermine the agent's ability to trust the disclosed behavior.

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 short but not cleanly structured: 'VERIFIED' and 'has NOT been verified' appear in adjacent statements, and 'works without a key' directly contradicts 'needs your own key.' The 'Example: All areas' line adds little value. Redundant and contradictory content should have been reconciled before including it.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the essentials: what it is, the return shape, volume (272 areas), and the important caveat to inspect the actual payload. However, the contradictory verification and auth statements leave gaps in reliability, and there is no explicit pointer to the sibling competition tools that would consume these area IDs. It is adequate but not fully dependable.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately adds no unsupported parameter claims. The 'Example: All areas' hint reinforces that the tool returns the full set of areas.

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 identifies the resource as countries/regions for filtering competitions, which adds meaning beyond the bare tool name. It includes a returns shape and example, reinforcing that this is a lookup tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get' and doesn't directly contrast with sibling tools such as footballdataorg_competitions.

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 phrase 'used to filter competitions' provides clear contextual usage for when this lookup should be invoked. However, there are no explicit exclusions, alternative tool recommendations, or a described workflow (e.g., 'use returned area IDs with footballdataorg_competitions'). The contradictory auth statements ('works without a key' vs 'needs your own key in FOOTBALL_DATA_ORG_KEY') further muddy the practical guidance.

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