nhl_seasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing the response structure (currentDate, seasons array with specific fields), the season id format, and that auth is not needed. It doesn't mention pagination or limitations, but for a no-parameter list endpoint, this is adequate.

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 structured: purpose statement, return example, and auth note. It front-loads the key action (get valid season ids) and includes a clear return format example. No redundant text.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, the format of the important id field, and that no auth is needed. It provides enough context for an agent to call it and correctly use the response.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond schema by explaining each field in the return object and what the season id represents. It fully compensates for lack of input parameters by describing the output semantics.

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: 'Every season the standings API covers, with its start/end dates and which rules applied — call this to get valid season ids.' It specifies a concrete verb+resource and distinguishes itself by providing season metadata and IDs for other tools. The return example further clarifies the exact purpose.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'call this to get valid season ids' and notes that the id format is what 'every other tool wants.' This implies using it as a prerequisite for other NHL tools. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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