laliga_competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context beyond annotations: the return structure and an auth note ('works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more if set'), which clarifies data availability and key requirements. This is useful, though it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or errors.

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 concise and well-structured: three short paragraphs covering purpose, return format, and auth. Each sentence earns its place, with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It covers scope, return fields, and auth behavior. Even without an output schema, the return structure is explicitly provided, and annotations cover safety. Little else is needed for accurate invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist; the schema is fully self-explanatory. No compensation is needed.

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 'All LaLiga competitions' with specific scope (men's/women's, primera/segunda, across history) and lists key fields (slug, opta_id, name). This specifies a distinct resource and scope, differentiating it from sibling tools like laliga_competition (singular) which likely fetches a single competition.

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 usage by describing the resource ('All LaLiga competitions') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or sibling tools. The auth note provides some context but no direct comparison to other laliga_* tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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