pl_structure

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

Annotations cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds the return shape and an auth note, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or data freshness. Thus, the description provides some but not rich context beyond 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 three short, front-loaded sentences: a clear purpose line, a return shape line, and an auth line. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and supporting annotations, the description covers the core aspects: what it returns, the expected structure, and auth requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a bit more context about the structure fields would elevate it further.

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 documents both parameters fully, with descriptions for cid ('Competition id (8)') and sid ('Season id (the starting year; 2025 = 2025/26)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no param-specific meaning, 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 identifies the resource (season structure) and its scope (current phase + phase/matchweek layout for one season). The 'Returns' line signals a retrieval operation, and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like pl_current_gameweek or pl_matches by focusing on the overall structure.

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 clear context: this tool is for retrieving a season's structure. It specifies the return object and the absence of auth, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the use case is well implied, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.

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