list_rounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds result ordering and inclusive date filtering, but says nothing about pagination or how the default limit of 50 bounds results.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and ordering lead, and the format/matching details follow. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema already describing return values, this is nearly complete: filters, formats, and ordering are covered. Only result-count/pagination behavior and sibling routing are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for three of four parameters: start/end formats (YYYY-MM-DD), inclusivity, and substring matching for course. The limit parameter (default 50) is left unaddressed, a minor remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List rounds') plus ordering ('newest first') and filter semantics, which clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_round. It does not explicitly name siblings like list_courses or course_stats, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 by the description (a listing tool with optional date and course filters), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as get_round or compare_seasons. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing help.

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