laliga_rounds

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the auth requirement: 'works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more if set.' It also discloses the return structure. These details complement the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficient: a one-line purpose statement, a concise return type block, and an auth note. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, return shape (compensating for the lack of an output schema), and auth behavior. It does not explain edge cases like invalid slug handling, but given the schema covers the parameter and annotations confirm safety, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter 'slug' with 100% description coverage, explaining it as 'Subscription slug. Required — part of the URL path.' The description provides no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource: "Rounds / matchweeks structure for a season" and includes the return shape, distinguishing it from sibling tools like laliga_matches or laliga_standing. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list', opening with a noun phrase rather than a direct action.

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. The description does not mention scenarios where this is preferred over laliga_matches, laliga_competition, or other related tools, nor does it state any exclusions. The only extra context is auth behavior, which is not usage guidance.

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