highlightly_soccer_leagues

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape, including a caveat that it is unverified from vendor docs, and the authentication requirement. This transparency is positive. However, it introduces a misleading reference to a leagueId filter and lacks details on pagination behavior or rate limits. With annotations already covering readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and includes essential notes about the return shape, verification caveat, and auth. However, the line 'Example: Competitions covered' is redundant and adds no information, and the phrasing 'Football competitions covered' as an opening is awkward. It is still reasonably structured and not overly verbose.

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 simple listing tool, the description provides the return shape and auth, but the inaccurate leagueId mention and lack of clarity on pagination/filtering behavior leave gaps. The schema covers parameters, but the description could have resolved the leagueId discrepancy. Since there is no output schema, the return shape is helpful, though unverified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (limit, leagueName, countryCode) at 100%, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds no meaningful parameter information and even mentions a non-existent leagueId parameter, which is a negative. The baseline of 3 holds because the description doesn't enhance schema semantics but also doesn't materially detract, aside from the misleading reference.

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 is a noun phrase lacking an explicit verb, making the operation unclear. 'Football competitions covered, with the leagueId filters' doesn't clearly state that this tool lists football leagues, and it references a 'leagueId' filter that does not exist in the input schema. It gives the domain (football) but fails to specify the action or distinguish it from sibling tools like highlightly_soccer_matches.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases for competition data, nor does it offer exclusions. The phrase 'with the leagueId filters' implies a use case but is unsupported by the schema. No alternative tools or conditions are referenced.

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