nrl_competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return structure ({competitionDetails:{competition:[...]}}), which are valuable behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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-organized and efficiently communicates purpose, return format, example usage, and auth status in a few short blocks. It's concise but not minimal, with the example and return structure adding practical value without verbosity.

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?

Given a simple no-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what data is returned, the exact JSON shape, the downstream usage (nrl_fixture/nrl_match), and auth requirements. An agent can confidently invoke this tool and interpret results without additional context.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on what the returned data contains and how to use it, which is the relevant semantic guidance for a no-arg tool.

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 the tool returns all Champion Data competition IDs with season and round counts, and explicitly positions it as the lookup for NRL competitionId (e.g., 12999 = 2026 NRL Premiership) to pass to nrl_fixture/nrl_match. This distinguishes it from other competition catalogues (pl_competitions, laliga_competitions) via its specific NRL/Champion Data focus.

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?

It says to use this tool to find the NRL competitionId before calling nrl_fixture/nrl_match, providing concrete examples. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative competition catalogues, but the context is clear for the intended NRL workflow.

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