list_competitions

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: cursor-paginated with default/max limits, null nextCursor signals end. This is sufficient for safe invocation. Could also mention order or filtering, but current details are adequate.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading purpose and then adding pagination details. No redundant or vague statements; every sentence 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?

The description is complete for a listing tool with no output schema: it specifies scope, pagination mechanics, and limits. It omits return field descriptions, but pagination details suffice for usage. Could be improved by noting typical sort order.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the limit default/max and cursor usage (pass previous response's nextCursor). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('competitions visible through the public API'), immediately conveying what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_competition' by implying a list vs. single retrieval context.

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 provides explicit pagination usage (cursor, limit, nextCursor semantics) and mentions OAuth scope, enabling correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_competition' for when to list vs. fetch a specific item.

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