pinnacle_sport_leagues

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 specifying the exact return structure (top-level array of objects with id, name, group, isFeatured, matchupCount) and noting that no authentication is needed, which goes beyond the 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 compact and efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a return shape, an example, and an auth note. Every line contributes necessary 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure and auth, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It misses edge-case details like error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single sportId parameter, including examples and its origin from pinnacle_sports. The description's example repeats this information without adding any new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns leagues (competitions) for one sport with feature/group info, and it lists the exact return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups and pinnacle_league_matchups, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an example ('Baseball leagues {sportId: 3}') and notes it is for one sport, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar data. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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