Supported competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces the offline/local-table behavior and adds a genuine scoping caveat: in-season status is deliberately absent and must come from the read tools via betweenEditions. It also enumerates the three surface states (offered, not-offered-yet, not-applicable), which is behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its columns, then two short clarifying sentences about offline behavior and the in-season exclusion. The opening sentence is dense and column-heavy but every clause carries information; no 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?

An output schema exists, so the field-by-field enumeration is largely redundant, but the description compensates with the two things the schema cannot say: it is a local, network-free read, and in-season status lives elsewhere. What remains missing is explicit guidance on calling it first to resolve aliases, which is only gestured at.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both lang and competition (alias vs ESPN slug, fallback chain). The description only restates that the alias is the value other tools accept, adding marginal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource precisely (the supported-competitions table) and enumerates the columns it returns: alias, name, teams, kind, per-surface availability, and the current competition. The listing verb is only implied by 'one per row', and it is clearly not any of the sibling reads (standings, bracket, market signal), so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: calling out 'the alias every other tool's competition argument takes' hints this is the discovery step for valid competition values, and 'Offline: reads the supported table, never the network' tells the agent it is a cheap local lookup. There is no explicit 'call this before other tools' instruction or stated alternative to compare against.

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