compare_leagues

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return format in detail but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Very concise: two short paragraphs covering functionality and usage. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

Given the simple schema and presence of output schema, the description is comprehensive. Lists all output fields and gives usage guidance. Could mention behavior for fewer than 2 or more than 10 league IDs, but schema already provides the recommended range.

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% with one parameter well-described. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what is already in the input schema; it restates the purpose. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states verb 'compare' and resource 'leagues', lists all output fields, and distinguishes from siblings like compare_league_trajectories and assess_league_readiness.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: evaluating multiple partnership candidates or benchmarking leagues within a sport vertical. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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