supercoach_settings

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Tiny (~15 KB)', the exact response shape, an example call, and 'Auth: none needed.' It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a small read-only settings endpoint, the added context is sufficient.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to usage, return structure, and example. However, there is some redundancy: the 'Returns:' section repeats fields already listed in the opening sentence. Each sentence contributes value, but the duplication slightly lowers efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and returns a small structured payload. The description covers the purpose, key fields, usage workflow (call before supercoach_players), expected size, authentication, and provides a concrete example. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists the return structure, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema already fully explain sport, year, mode, and min. The description adds an example ('{"sport": "afl", "year": 2026}') and a note about round selection, but does not materially enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Competition state for one game+season' with a specific list of returned fields (current_round, next_round, lockout info, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'Call this FIRST to learn which round to pass to supercoach_players', making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST to learn which round to pass to supercoach_players.' This provides clear context and a concrete predecessor relationship. It does not mention explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the single downstream tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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