List competitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (IDs, country codes, tiers, provider coverage), informing the agent about return behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication, or data freshness; for a simple read-only list operation this is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the function and output attributes; the second adds usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-argument list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, lists the returned fields, and positions the tool in the workflow with 'Use this first.' Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds value by explaining how to use the results (to obtain a valid competition ID), effectively covering the input-less invocation. The baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource, 'competitions OpenFootAPI supports,' and enumerates the returned attributes (IDs, country codes, tiers, provider coverage). It also identifies itself as the source for valid competition IDs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openfoot_matches and openfoot_standings.

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 second sentence provides explicit guidance: 'Use this first when you need a valid competition ID.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to others. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but for a zero-parameter list endpoint this is sufficient context.

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