laliga_competition

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

The annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: numeric IDs fail with 404, and it explains the auth model ('works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more'). This is beyond annotation data.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it returns, the return shape, and auth requirements. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, parameter format, failure mode, auth, and return structure. Since there's no output schema, the return example is particularly valuable.

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 schema already fully describes the slug parameter with examples. The description reinforces this with 'e.g. primera-division' and warns against numeric IDs, adding practical selection guidance. No gaps remain.

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 opens with 'One competition by SLUG', clearly identifying a single-resource retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling list tool laliga_competitions by specifying singular access and gives an example slug.

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?

It explicitly says 'use the slug' and warns that numeric id 404s, providing a concrete usage rule. It doesn't compare to alternatives like laliga_competitions, but the singular scoping and slug guidance make the appropriate use clear.

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