sportsdb_leagues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never confirms this is a read-only operation, says nothing about result count, pagination, rate limits, or the shape of a league record. 'List all' hints at an unfiltered read but stops there.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free listing tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about return contents and whether the result set is bounded. A brief note on what a league entry contains would close the gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level ambiguity is introduced.

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 and resource ('List all sports leagues') and names the data source, TheSportsDB. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like sportsdb_search_team or sportsdb_search_player beyond the obvious noun difference.

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 word 'all' implies this is an unfiltered enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when a search tool would be preferable, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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