get_leagues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns all tracked leagues/tournaments with ids and tiers, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention any potential limitations, data freshness, authentication requirements, or whether the list is sorted or paginated. The description is minimal and leaves much to inference.

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 a single sentence that directly states the content and format of the result. It is concise and front-loaded with the key information (all tracked leagues/tournaments, ids, tiers). It could arguably include a bit more structure, but for a simple tool with no parameters, this is appropriately sized.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description covers the essential information: what is returned and what fields are included. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic purpose and expected output type, though it omits details like ordering or whether the list is exhaustive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no schema to add detail, and the description correctly does not introduce any parameter-related confusion. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate.

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?

Description states a clear resource (tracked leagues/tournaments) and informs the user it returns ids and tiers. The verb is implied (get/list), but the content is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_league_matches, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any conditions that would make it preferable to other league-related tools. The description simply states what the tool returns without contextual usage direction.

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