isportsapi_football_competitions

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by documenting the return shape, the meaning of code:0, the HTTP 200 error delivery, and the caveat that the shape is unverified. It also discloses the auth requirement (ISPORTS_API_KEY). This is useful behavioral context, though the unverified warning is more about data reliability than tool 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 well-structured with clear sections (Returns, NOTE, Example, Auth) and no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose, return shape, caveat, and auth in a compact form. Every sentence contributes information.

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 parameterless list tool, the description covers what is needed: the resource, the return format, error semantics, and the unverified nature of the data. The example clarifies the scope, and the auth note covers a critical prerequisite. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately takes on the role of documenting return values.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is acceptable. The return shape example partially compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 provides 'Football competitions with their ids', which is a specific resource and implies a list operation. The return shape with field names confirms this, but the description lacks a verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate this from other competition tools like pl_competitions or laliga_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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling competition tools. The example 'Every competition' implies it returns all competitions, but there is no discussion of intended use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. For a simple list tool, this is a partial gap.

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