get_season

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (dates, associations, host teams, image URLs) and implies a read operation. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid idSeason, rate limits, or side effects. The 'raw' and 'language' parameters are not explained behaviorally.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides examples and key data elements. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderate. It lists output elements but not their structure or how parameters affect output. Sibling tools exist but are not differentiated. The description is sufficient for a simple get-by-id tool but leaves gaps for parameter usage and error behavior.

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%, with idSeason having no description in schema. The description mentions 'by idSeason' but does not clarify the format of the string. For 'raw' and 'language', the description adds no meaning beyond the schema defaults and descriptions. The description should at least explain the 'raw' parameter's function.

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 it retrieves a single season/edition by ID and lists the data included (dates, associations, host teams, image URLs), making the verb and resource specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_seasons (which lists multiple) and other get tools that return different entities.

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 implies usage when you need detailed info on a specific season by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_seasons, get_competition, or search_competitions. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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