nbl_seasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds value by disclosing that no auth is needed, the exact return structure, and the scope ('Every NBL season'), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured and concise, with every sentence providing useful information: the scope of data, the downstream tool connections, the current-season heuristic, the return format, and auth requirements. No fluff 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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete. It includes the full return schema, gives practical usage guidance, notes auth requirements, and even explains how to derive the current regular season. The absence of an output schema is fully compensated by the explicit 'Returns' section.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does explain the output fields in detail, which adds semantic meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 what the tool does: it returns every NBL season with all relevant fields. It also positions itself as the discovery entry point, linking to downstream tools like nbl_stat_leaders and year-scoped feeds, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to get a season's id for nbl_stat_leaders or its year for year-scoped feeds, and how to identify the current regular season. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, but the guidance is sufficient.

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