laliga_subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's added value comes from disclosing the return shape (exact subscription object structure) and auth behavior (works without a key; LALIGA_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY unlocks more). This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it could further explain what 'unlocks more' entails or error scenarios.

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: first sentence states purpose and key usage guidance, second provides exact return shape, third covers auth. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no fluff, and the most critical information (slug-based lookup and teams alternative) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return structure, so the agent knows what to expect. It also covers auth prerequisites, the single parameter, and distinguishes from a closely related sibling. For a simple read-only single-resource tool with strong annotations, this description is complete enough.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single 'slug' parameter is fully described with an example (laliga-easports-2025 = 2025/26) and required status. The description only reiterates 'by slug' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 tool as retrieving a single season instance by slug, listing the exact data fields (competition, year, season name, current gameweek, rounds, teams). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling laliga_teams by declaring this tool's teams list as 'authoritative' for a season roster, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance to use this tool instead of laliga_teams for a season roster, which is a clear when-to-use/alternative statement. It implies use for a specific season subscription by slug, but does not explicitly mention when to use the sibling laliga_subscriptions (plural) for listing all seasons, leaving a minor gap in alternative coverage.

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