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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds that results are upcoming matches in playing order, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like default limits or pagination. Given annotations cover safety, a score of 3 reflects modest added value.

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, short, direct sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function and output characteristics without wasted words.

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?

The tool has a required tournament_key, an optional limit, and an output schema. The description explains the primary return value but omits details like default date range or limit behavior. Given the output schema and annotations, it is mostly complete for a simple read-only tool, but leaves minor gaps.

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 schema documents tournament_key but leaves limit without a description. The description does not mention either parameter, nor does it explain how limit affects the result set. With schema coverage at 50% and no compensation from the description, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns upcoming matches with specific attributes (playing order, courts, estimated times). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_results (finished matches) and get_standings (points tables). The verb is implied by the title 'Get,' but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_matches or get_results. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool suggestions are provided. The description only describes output content, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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