nrl_competitions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns all competitions (read-only operation) and provides the output structure. No destructive behavior is implied, and the scope is well-defined. It could mention that it returns data from Champion Data, which it does, but lacks details on authentication or rate limits, though these are unlikely issues for a simple catalogue.

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 (three sentences plus an example of return structure and usage). It front-loads the key purpose, provides concrete examples, and ends with a clear usage note. No wasted words.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned, the structure, example IDs, and how to use the output. It covers all necessary context for a simple catalogue tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output structure and providing example IDs, compensating for the lack of parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 a catalogue of all Champion Data competitions, including NRL and State of Origin, with IDs, season, and round counts. It specifies the purpose of finding NRL competition IDs to use with sibling tools like nrl_fixture and nrl_match, distinguishing it from those 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 explicitly says to use this tool to find the NRL competitionId to pass to nrl_fixture or nrl_match. It implies this is the first step for NRL data retrieval, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is clear.

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