pl_competition

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape '{id, code, name}'. It goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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: three short sentences covering purpose, return value, and authentication. Every sentence adds distinct value 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?

For a simple read-only getter with one parameter, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and that no auth is needed. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, making this complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents the 'cid' parameter, including the example (8 = Premier League) and that it's required and part of the URL path. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail, 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 the tool fetches one competition by id, with a specific example (8 = Premier League). This distinguishes it from sibling pl_competitions (plural), which presumably lists competitions.

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 phrase 'One competition by id' implies usage for a single competition lookup, contrasting with plural alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, leaving some implicit guidance.

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