get_competition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation (fetch details) but does not explicitly state it's read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The mention of 'details' and specific fields provides some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Structure is clean and efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description hints at returned fields (name, organizer, type), which helps the agent understand the response shape. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate. However, it could mention read-only behavior or error scenarios to be more 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?

Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description adds context for the required `idCompetition` parameter by stating it's the identifier, but it does not elaborate on format or constraints. The `raw` and `language` parameters already have schema descriptions, so no additional value from the tool description. Overall, the description adds marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get details for one FIFA competition by its idCompetition', specifying the verb (Get), resource (details for one FIFA competition), and key fields (name, organizer, type). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing search_competitions for name-based lookup.

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 explicitly provides guidance: 'Use search_competitions first if you only have the competition's name.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, making it highly actionable.

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