pl_competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by stating pagination behavior, the return shape ({pagination, data:[{id, code, name}]}), and 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 concise and efficient, covering purpose, pagination, return format, and auth in three short sentences. Every sentence carries useful 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides essential details: what resource is returned, pagination, return structure, and auth. It also includes a specific example (Premier League = id 8). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination but does not add detail about limit or next_cursor beyond what the schema already provides (page size and opaque cursor). No additional semantics are given for the parameters.

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's function: listing all competitions on the platform. It gives the specific Premier League ID as an example, making the resource unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_competition (singular) which likely fetches a single competition.

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 implies usage for retrieving all competitions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like laliga_competitions or afl_competitions_list. It mentions pagination and the Premier League ID, but no exclusions or explicit context for choosing this tool.

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