Sport competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (dates, venue, free places, registration status), but says nothing about pagination, sorting, or how registration status is derived.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and the returned fields with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 no-required-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool this covers the gist of the response, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. However, the optional filter parameter is completely unexplained and there is no guidance on scope, so the definition is only minimally complete.

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 sole parameter sport_type_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so neither source explains its meaning, valid values, or what omitting it returns. The description's field list describes the response, not the input, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (university sports competitions) and enumerates the fields it returns (dates, venue, free places, registration status), which separates it from siblings like itmo_get_sport_schedule and itmo_get_sport_status. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'get' is implied by the name and the noun is 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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of itmo_get_sport_schedule, itmo_get_sport_filters, or itmo_get_sport_status. The agent must infer that this returns a competition listing, and nothing is said about prerequisites, registration windows, or exclusions.

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