List competitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety burden; 'List' plus 'Returns slugs' conveys a read-only enumeration and hints at the return shape, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, season selection behavior (no season parameter exists), or what happens if districtId and search interact.

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, zero filler, with the scope (current season) and the key downstream fact (slugs used by other tools) front-loaded.

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 3-parameter read-only list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope, targeting (federation vs. district), and what the response yields. Minor gap: it doesn't say how results are ordered or how search interacts with district scoping.

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 100%, so the schema already documents federation, districtId, and search with examples and patterns. The description's 'federation-wide or in one district' framing mirrors the districtId schema text ('omit for federation-level competitions') rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (competitions), disambiguates the term with '(series/leagues)', and scopes it to the current season. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_districts or list_federations, but the federation-wide vs. district framing makes its place in the hierarchy inferable.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call it for the current season, either federation-wide or for one district, and notes the returned slugs feed the other tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite chain (federation code / district id must be obtained elsewhere) is stated in the description, though the schema points to list_districts.

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