List competitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output contents (season metadata, data source/licence) and scope (75 competitions), but does not explicitly state read-only nature, discuss side effects, limits, or error behavior. It is adequate for a catalog tool but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is first, followed by usage guidance and coverage details. Every sentence adds value and the structure is logical and 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains enough about the return content (competitions, season metadata, source/licence). It also covers scope and guidance. While it does not detail the exact list format or any pagination, it is sufficient for a simple catalog tool and aligns with the complexity.

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?

There are no parameters (0), so the baseline is 4. The description refers to no parameters, and since none exist, it does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('competitions FootballStack supports') with metadata details, and contrasts with the deep coverage to distinguish its scope. Effectively differentiates from siblings by indicating this is the broad catalogue.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first,' providing a clear entry-point instruction. It also compares broad vs. deep coverage and notes historical/analytics limitations for specific leagues, giving context for when to use other tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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