laliga_competitions

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a list, which implies read-only, but does not explicitly mention safety (e.g., no side effects) or any constraints. Since it's a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Description is short (3 lines) and front-loaded with scope. It includes a return structure example. Efficient but could be slightly more concise.

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?

No output schema, but description provides return structure. Complexity is low (0 params, simple list). Scope and return fields are fully covered, making it complete for this tool.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so description needs no param details. Baseline 4 per instructions. Description adds nothing beyond schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all LaLiga competitions with specific details (slug, opta_id, name) and specifies scope (men's/women's, primera/segunda, across history). It distinguishes from sibling laliga_competition which is for 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 use for listing all competitions, contrasting with laliga_competition, but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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