APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses return values ('Returns league ID, name, type, country, logo') and data source ('API-Sports'). Implies read-only safety through 'Search' verb, though could explicitly state non-destructive nature.

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 zero waste: action sentence first, return values second, workflow/integration third. Every clause provides distinct value (function, output schema compensation, sibling relationship).

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 exists, the description appropriately documents return fields. With no annotations, it establishes the tool's role in the broader workflow. Adequate for a simple 2-parameter search tool with clear sibling relationships.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'country' and 'search' parameters. Description maps these to 'country or name' but adds minimal semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('football leagues and cups') with clear scope ('by country or name'). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings sports.football.fixtures and sports.football.standings by noting this tool provides the IDs needed for those queries.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance ('Use IDs for fixtures and standings queries') clarifying this is a prerequisite step for other football tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the relationship to siblings is clearly mapped.

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