footballdataorg_competition

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that an API key is required (403 without it) and candidly notes that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, which is a valuable caveat for the agent. No contradiction with annotations; it supplements them with auth and data reliability 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 moderately sized with clear sections: summary, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. Each part adds value, though the note about vendor docs could be considered slightly verbose. Overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the expected JSON shape and highlights that it is unverified, which is important context. It covers auth, an example, and the purpose. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully describes the single parameter with valid competition codes and a note about URL path integration (100% coverage). The description adds a concrete example (`PL` for Premier League) but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. The example helps with format but does not elevate semantics significantly.

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 'One competition with its current season and available seasons,' identifying the resource and scope. The singular form distinguishes it from the sibling `footballdataorg_competitions`. The return shape and example reinforce the purpose.

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 this tool is for fetching a single competition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the plural `footballdataorg_competitions` or other competition-specific tools. The example shows a typical invocation and the auth note provides a prerequisite, but no explicit when-not guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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