pl_awards

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral details: it explicitly states the return shape ({player_awards:[…], manager_awards:[…]}) and that no authentication is required. This helps the agent know what to expect and that no credentials are needed.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for return structure, one for auth. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: purpose, return format, and auth requirement. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty arrays or ordering, but those are minor for this type of 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?

Schema descriptions cover both parameters fully, explaining cid as competition ID and sid as season ID with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as season awards (Player/Manager of the Month and other honours), which is distinct from any sibling tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the noun phrase and 'Returns:' to imply retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need season awards for a given competition and season, this is the tool. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusion guidance, but the unique resource makes the use case fairly obvious.

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