pandascore_leagues

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already establish the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the requirement for an API key in PANDASCORE_TOKEN and the important warning that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified. This helps an agent know the payload may differ, though error behavior and rate limits are not addressed.

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 with the definition, followed by the return shape, a critical caveat, an example, and auth note. Every part is relevant, though the example is minimal and the structure could be tightened. It earns a 4 for efficiency and clear organization.

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 simple list tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It includes the expected return shape (with a caveat), auth requirements, and the resource definition. However, it lacks an explicit statement of the operation (list/get) and does not explain how the optional filters affect results, but given the tool's simplicity this is adequate.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional explanation about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify ambiguous terms like 'Title slug' for filter_videogame.

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 defines leagues as 'recurring competitions tournaments belong to' and provides the return shape, making it clear this is a list/fetch operation for leagues. It distinguishes from siblings like pandascore_tournaments by explaining the relationship, but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'List' or 'Get'), so it doesn't fully meet the 5 criterion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pandascore_tournaments or pandascore_series. The description only defines the resource and returns a shape; it does not state when to choose this tool, any prerequisites, or exclusions. The 'Example: All leagues' is too vague to serve as usage guidance.

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