pl_awards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape '{player_awards:[…], manager_awards:[…]}' (useful given there is no output schema). 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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, auth, and a routing note. Every line earns its place. The 'Also answers this: mlb_awards' line is cryptic and slightly confusing, which prevents a 5, but overall it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 2-parameter read tool, the essentials are covered: purpose, fully documented params in schema, clear auth requirement, and a disclosed return structure despite the missing output schema. Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety. It is essentially complete; only the ambiguous mlb_awards routing note detracts slightly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both cid and sid carry adequate descriptions in the schema ('Competition id (8)' and 'Season id (2025 = 2025/26)'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific read operation: 'Season awards — Player/Manager of the Month and other honours for a season.' The verb and resource are clear, and the scope (per-season honours) is explicit. It doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling pl_* tools, but no sibling has an obviously overlapping purpose, so a 4 is fair rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred sibling for other award/season queries. The cryptic 'Also answers this: mlb_awards' hints at routing but does not provide usable when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells an agent which tool to pick over the many pl_* season-related siblings.

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