Leagues and seasons

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits, so the description focuses on behavior beyond that: the ID list is a curated 'short menu' but external league ids from v3_scores are accepted, season winners are returned only for football, and the sport argument is shared with three sibling tools. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or rate limits, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core dual-mode statement, then the routing and sport details. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical id examples are numerous enough to border on clutter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey returns, and it does: league ids in list mode, season ids and past winners in detail mode. It leaves the exact response shape (field names, ordering) unspecified, a minor gap for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting league_id yields the listing mode, and concrete id examples (6 Iranian Pro League, 55 Portuguese, 209 NBA) plus per-sport id mappings clarify what the enum and integer values denote. It exceeds the schema rather than restating it.

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 in both modes: list leagues with their ids, or fetch one league's current season id and past seasons with winners. The dual behavior is tied explicitly to the presence of league_id, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like v3_standings or v3_league_stats without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: call without league_id to discover ids for v3_standings, v3_league_matches, v3_top_players and v3_news, and it notes that any league_id surfaced by v3_scores is also valid. It also states that the other tools default to the current season, which tells the agent when this tool is needed instead of them.

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