footballdataorg_competitions

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

The description provides a detailed return shape, notes the verification status, and explains the 'plan' field, going beyond annotations. However, it directly contradicts itself by stating 'works without a key' in the first line but later saying 'Auth: needs your own key in FOOTBALL_DATA_ORG_KEY.' This self-contradiction reduces transparency.

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 contains a lot of valuable detail, but it is somewhat disorganized with a redundant 'VERIFIED live' claim paired with a later note that the shape is unverified. The 'Example: All competitions' line is vague and adds little value. The contradictory auth statements also hurt clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return shape, plan semantics, verification caveat, and auth expectations. It is reasonably complete, though the auth contradiction leaves some ambiguity about whether a key is truly required.

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 parameter 'areas' is fully described in the schema with a clear reference to footballdataorg_areas. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 returns every competition in the API along with its code and current season, with a concrete return shape. It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling footballdataorg_competition by explicitly using 'Every competition' and from other providers like pl_competitions by naming the API.

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 gives useful context about the free tier (TIER_ONE only) and that the tool works without a key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like footballdataorg_competition. I'm implied by 'Every competition' but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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