nrl_application_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ({applicationInfo, userInfo, competitionList, components, dataGrids, shellGroups}) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond the 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 front-loaded: it names the resource, lists key contents, provides a use case, gives the return shape, and notes auth requirements in just a few lines. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the return object's fields, highlights the practical use case, and confirms no authentication is required. The 'Example' line reinforces the purpose without adding unnecessary bulk.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; it clearly references the current-season dynamic nature of the returned config.

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 this is 'NRL match-centre application config' and enumerates the contents (competitionList, dataGrids, UI components, image paths). It differentiates from sibling tools like nrl_competitions by focusing on configuration data rather than match data, and adds a concrete use case: discovering active competitionIds and surfaced statistics.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: 'Handy for discovering the active competitionIds and which statistics the official site surfaces.' This implies it is for configuration lookup rather than live match data, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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