Soccer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Fetches the master configuration tree' but does not disclose any behavioral traits like output size, pagination, or whether it is read-only. This is a minor gap for a simple fetch tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a brief usage note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of purpose and use case. However, it lacks detail on the shape of the returned tree and how the query parameter affects results, leaving some ambiguity.

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 describes 'query' as 'Search or filter parameter' (100% coverage). The tool description adds a hint about discovering IDs, but it doesn't explain how to use the query parameter effectively. Thus, it provides marginal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('master configuration tree of all global soccer categories (nations) and their corresponding tournaments'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling match/season tools by focusing on configuration discovery for IDs.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Use this tool to discover season IDs (seasonId) or tournament IDs,' providing a clear use case. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple config lookup tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It highlights a critical dependency on a valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini, which is valuable. But it does not describe the output structure, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by an important prerequisite note. Every word earns its place, and the [CRITICAL] emphasis draws attention to a key requirement without redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and the prerequisite. It could benefit from a brief note on the returned bracket structure, but it is largely complete for a straightforward data retrieval 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?

The schema already documents seasonId as a numeric ID, and the description adds a crucial semantic constraint: the ID must come specifically from getConfigTreeMini. This additional guidance goes beyond the schema's basic description, enhancing parameter understanding.

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's function with a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('structural knockout bracket and playoff tree data for cup competitions'), and a specific scope ('a specific season'). This effectively distinguishes it from the many sibling tools focused on match statistics or season tables.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context by noting the critical prerequisite that seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternative tools for similar data.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by noting xG is 'if available' and highlighting the matchId requirement, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, potential errors, or return format.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a critical prerequisite in a highlighted [CRITICAL] tag, both front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description effectively covers what it does, what metrics it returns, and the required input source. It is sufficiently detailed for agent use, though a brief mention of alternatives would improve it further.

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 already covers the parameter fully, but the description adds value by specifying where the matchId comes from (getEvents or getLiveEvents). This extra context helps the agent know how to obtain a valid value.

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 retrieves comprehensive statistical analysis and gives specific metrics (pass accuracy, tackle rates, xG). The word 'detailed' in the tool name and 'highly comprehensive' in the description help differentiate it from the sibling get_match_stats, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides an important prerequisite: a valid matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., get_match_stats) or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the read operation and the optional filters, but it does not clarify behaviors such as whether a date is effectively required, what happens if no date is provided, or how results are returned. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes the primary scope, optional filters, and a practical use case without any unnecessary 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 is simple (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description has a notable gap: the schema marks all parameters optional, yet the description says 'for a specific date,' implying date is essential. This inconsistency could confuse an agent. The description otherwise covers what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks clarity on required inputs and output structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are generic ('Search or filter parameter'). The tool description adds that matchId and teamName are optional filters, providing some context. However, it does not elaborate on formats or requiredness, keeping the added value modest.

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 fetches soccer fixtures/events for a specific date, with optional filtering by match ID or team name. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a date-specific scope, and explicitly mentions use cases for upcoming matches or past results on a given day.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool ('Use this to find scheduled upcoming matches or past results for a specific day'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the date-specific focus makes the intended use clear without needing exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves all ongoing live matches and requires no arguments, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any other behavioral details. This is adequate for a straightforward read operation but leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will actually receive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Retrieves all ongoing, live soccer matches'), followed by a clear usage directive and a parameter note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and that no arguments are needed. However, it could be more complete by briefly noting the type of information returned (e.g., match IDs, teams, scores), which would help the agent set expectations. Despite this, it is sufficient for a simple live-events retrieval 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly notes 'No arguments required.' Since there are no parameters to explain, this satisfies the baseline for parameter semantics. The description adds clarity by confirming the agent does not need to provide any input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('ongoing, live soccer matches across the globe'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_events or get_livescore_season_fixtures. It also explicitly mentions the tool's global scope and real-time nature, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this tool when you need to know what matches are happening right now.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for a simple no-arg tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns real-time live scores and requires a valid seasonId, but does not detail response format, error behaviors, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'retrieves'.

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 concise and front-loaded with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second highlights a critical prerequisite. No filler or redundant information.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and the parameter source, but could briefly describe the return structure (e.g., a list of fixtures with live scores). However, the name and purpose provide strong implicit understanding.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with a clear description of seasonId. The tool description adds valuable context by specifying that the seasonId must be a valid value obtained from getConfigTreeMini, which directly aids correct invocation.

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 retrieves real-time live score status mapped to a season's fixtures, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_season_fixtures2 by emphasizing 'real-time live score status' rather than static fixtures.

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?

The description provides a clear use case ('tracking live developments within a specific tournament') and explicitly states a critical prerequisite (valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dependency on matchId from specific sources and lists what is returned (scorelines, period breakdowns), but it does not describe error behavior, read-only nature, or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second introduces a critical prerequisite. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required input, and high-level output content. It does not mention alternatives or edge cases, but for a core retrieval tool it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a generic description of matchId as 'The unique numeric ID.' The description adds value by indicating that matchId is a match identifier obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents, giving context beyond the schema.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('core match details, scorelines, and period breakdowns'). The term 'core' distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_match_details_extended', making its scope 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: a valid matchId must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dependency on a matchId from other tools, which is useful, but remains vague about what 'deeper insights' includes, error behavior, or output structure. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with the critical prerequisite marked as [CRITICAL] and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and data source dependency, but lacks details about the return format or the specific stats included. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more clarity on what the agent can expect, making it adequate but not complete.

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 description adds meaningful context to the matchId parameter by specifying it must be a valid ID from getEvents or getLiveEvents, going beyond the schema's minimal 'The unique numeric ID.' This directly guides the agent on how to obtain and use the parameter correctly.

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's function: 'Retrieves extended period-by-period match stats and deeper insights.' This specifies a distinct resource and differentiates from simpler sibling tools like get_match_details or get_match_stats through the emphasis on 'extended' and 'period-by-period.' Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the verb and resource are 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?

The description provides a critical prerequisite: 'Requires a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents.' This implies a usage flow and dependency, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_detailed_match_stats or get_match_details. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the requirement for a valid matchId and the nature of data (recent W/D/L records), which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, output format, or possible failure cases, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the purpose clearly, the second adds a critical usage note. No redundant wording or repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with only one parameter and no output schema, this description is fairly complete: it states what data is returned (form records for both teams) and the critical input requirement. It could elaborate on the structure of the form data (e.g., number of matches), but overall it is sufficient for correct use.

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% (matchId described as unique numeric ID), but the description adds extra context by stating that matchId must come from getEvents or getLiveEvents, which helps the agent source the parameter correctly. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves'), identifies the resource ('historical form data'), and scopes it precisely ('for both competing teams going into the match'), distinguishing it from sibling team- or season-level form tools.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool (pre-match, both teams) and provides a critical prerequisite (valid matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'gets' and the mention of 'metadata' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or address error behaviors (e.g., what happens with an invalid matchId). There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious safe-read implication.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical prerequisite. Every sentence provides essential information without any filler or redundancy, making it optimally concise for its scope.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key return fields, and a critical dependency. It does not explain return formatting or error scenarios, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Slightly more detail on when to prefer this over get_match_details would have raised the score.

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 defines matchId as 'The unique numeric ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable guidance beyond the schema by stating that the required matchId must be 'obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents.' This provides provenance information that helps the agent correctly source the parameter, exceeding the baseline for full 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Gets baseline metadata for a match' and enumerates the fields (stadium, referee, team names, start time), which explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_match_details or get_match_situations. The verb 'gets' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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?

The description gives a strong prerequisite ('Requires a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents') and notes it is 'crucial for understanding the context of a match.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_match_details, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implied but not fully articulated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the prerequisite (valid matchId) and that it retrieves metadata, but does not explain return format, error behavior, or whether odds are included. It adds some context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, for which entity (match), and the critical prerequisite. Given no output schema, it could provide more detail on return structure, but the description is sufficient for a straightforward use case.

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 only describes matchId as 'The unique numeric ID,' which is minimal. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the ID must be a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents, giving the agent crucial information for parameter selection beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' with a clear resource ('betting market metadata') and gives concrete examples (1x2, Asian Handicap, Over/Under lines). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on betting markets, which no other sibling mentions.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context by stating that a valid matchId is required and that it must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This gives the agent clear guidance on prerequisites, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the critical dependency on a matchId from specific tools, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, behavior on invalid IDs, or confirm read-only status. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a critical usage requirement. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It lists example return data but does not explain the structure or edge cases. Given the low complexity, this is reasonably complete but not 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 schema only describes matchId as 'The unique numeric ID.' The description adds that it must be a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents, providing source and validation context beyond the schema. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's minimal description.

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 retrieves 'critical play situations like dangerous attacks, safe possession zones, and penalty pressure metrics.' The verb 'retrieves' and specific examples make the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_match_timeline or get_match_stats, but the unique focus on 'critical play situations' provides enough distinction for a 4.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by specifying that a valid matchId is required and that it must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This gives the agent explicit guidance on prerequisites. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a 'CRITICAL' note about the required matchId provenance, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, return structure, or any side effects. It is not misleading but leaves some transparency gaps.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose; the second provides a critical prerequisite. Information is front-loaded with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned (starter lineups, formations, bench) and how to obtain the required ID. Minor gaps like error handling or response format do not significantly hinder usage.

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?

Although the schema describes matchId as 'The unique numeric ID' (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that the ID must come from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This goes beyond the schema and aids correct parameter selection.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly states the resource ('starter lineups, formations, and bench players for both teams'). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_match_details or get_team_usual_lineup, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description provides a critical prerequisite (requires matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents), giving useful context on when to call it. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_team_usual_lineup, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, and the CRITICAL note about matchId adds useful context about a dependency. However, it does not mention authentication, error behavior, or output format, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the critical prerequisite, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists example return data and the critical dependency on matchId. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but for a simple stats retrieval it is sufficiently complete.

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 already describes matchId as 'The unique numeric ID,' and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that it must be a valid matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 retrieves general match statistics and lists specific examples (possession, shots, corners, cards). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_detailed_match_stats, relying on the word 'general' to imply scope.

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?

It explicitly states a prerequisite: matchId must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the dependency on a valid matchId from specific event endpoints, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe return format or potential edge cases. It provides some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key dependency. It lacks an explicit output description, but given the tool's narrow scope and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. A minor gap is not explaining what 'slice' means in terms of table columns, but this is not critical.

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 provides minimal description for matchId ('The unique numeric ID.'). The description adds significant semantic value by specifying that the ID must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents, giving the agent crucial sourcing information beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: retrieving a slice of the league table for the two teams in a match. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_season_tables (full table) and get_match_details (match info). The purpose is unambiguous and uses a specific verb+resource construction.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context: it requires a matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents, which indicates when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the prerequisite and match-specific nature provide sufficient guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a key prerequisite (valid matchId from specific tools) and implies a read-only retrieval action via 'Retrieves'. However, it does not disclose return format, potential errors, or pagination. The critical note provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second gives a critical usage note. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description is sufficient: it names the event types returned, specifies the match context, and gives a critical prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on return structure could help, but the core functionality is clear and complete for an agent to select and call the 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (matchId) but only describes it as 'unique numeric ID'. The description adds meaningful context by stating that the matchId must come from getEvents or getLiveEvents, guiding the agent on where to source the value. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('complete sequential timeline of events (goals, cards, substitutions) that occurred during the match'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_timeline_delta by emphasizing 'complete sequential' and from get_events by specifying the timeline nature.

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?

The '[CRITICAL]' note provides a clear prerequisite: a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents. This gives context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternative timeline tools or exclusions. The prerequisite is actionable and prevents misuse.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning only recent events for live matches, and emphasizes the critical need for a valid matchId from specific sources. However, it does not describe what 'recent' means, the exact output format, or behavior for non-live matches.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded. The critical note is placed at the end using [CRITICAL] to draw attention. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, the main prerequisite, and the use case for live updates. It does not fully explain return value structure or edge cases, but this is a simple retrieval tool and the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 a single parameter 'matchId' described as 'The unique numeric ID.' The description adds value by clarifying that this ID must be obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents, providing source context beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'Retrieves only recent timeline events for a live match', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_match_timeline' by emphasizing 'only recent' and 'for a live match'.

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?

The phrase 'used for live updates' provides explicit context for when to use the tool. It further gives a prerequisite: 'Requires a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents', indicating a dependency. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-live scenarios.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies read-only behavior, but nothing is disclosed about what 'historical game data' includes, whether results are aggregated or per-match, or any limitations. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the tool's name.

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, focused sentence with a front-loaded verb and no superfluous wording. It efficiently conveys the action and scope without wasting 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure. It only mentions high-level content ('historical game data and card-issuing tendencies') without specifying the response shape (e.g., summary, list of games, or aggregated counts). Combined with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context.

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 description coverage is 100%, but both parameter descriptions are generic ('The unique numeric ID'). The description adds that the tool targets a 'specific referee within a season', connecting the parameters to real-world concepts, but does not elaborate on value constraints or relationships. This meets the baseline but adds little extra.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' with a clear resource: 'historical game data and card-issuing tendencies for a specific referee within a season.' This precisely defines the tool's action and scope, and no sibling tool focuses on referee-specific stats, so it is well-differentiated.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for referee stats within a season, it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare to other statistics tools in the sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It uses 'Retrieves' to imply a read-only operation and discloses the dependency on a valid seasonId, but does not mention pagination, error behavior, rate limits, or response format. Some behavioral context is present, but gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a critical note. Every sentence is purposeful with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 only one parameter, the schema covers it fully, and there is no output schema. The description provides the core purpose and a key prerequisite, giving an agent enough context to decide to invoke it. However, the lack of output schema and vague terms like 'comprehensive' leave some uncertainty about response structure.

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 fully documents the seasonId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the seasonId must be valid and obtained from getConfigTreeMini, which is not in the schema and helps the agent correctly source the parameter.

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 retrieves comprehensive fixtures and schedule for a specific season, enriched with analytics and statistical pre-match data. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_season_team_fixtures (team-specific) and get_livescore_season_fixtures (live scores).

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?

The description provides a critical prerequisite (valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical dependency (seasonId from getConfigTreeMini) and states the filtering behavior. However, it does not describe the output format, what 'recent' means, or any other behavioral details, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence and a critical note in the second. No redundant information.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and dependency. It would benefit from clarifying what 'form' means, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 describes seasonId only as 'The unique numeric ID,' but the description adds crucial semantics by specifying that it must be a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini, guiding the agent on how to source the value. With 100% schema coverage, this extra context elevates the parameter understanding.

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 'Retrieves standings filtered specifically by recent overall, home, or away form.' This identifies a specific action, resource (standings), and scope (form filtering), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_season_tables that likely return unfiltered standings.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini,' telling the agent when it can use this tool (after obtaining seasonId). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the phrase 'filtered specifically' implies this is for form-based standings rather than general tables.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Retrieves' and lists some return content categories, but it does not describe the return format, possible errors, or the fact that an invalid seasonId would fail. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and a critical usage note in the second. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the for retrieving goals statistics, lists specific output dimensions, and provides a critical prerequisite. It lacks a full return structure description, but for a simple retrieval tool this is reasonably complete.

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 is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, giving the parameter a source and validation context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 retrieves detailed goals statistics for a season and specifies the content types (timing of goals, goal type distributions, team scoring trends). This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_season_top_goals or get_season_team_scoring_conceding.

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?

The [CRITICAL] note gives explicit context on using a valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5 benchmark.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dependency on a validated seasonId and the 'currently active' time-sensitivity, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature (though 'Retrieves' implies it), error behavior, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the [CRITICAL] tag effectively highlights the dependency.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (a list) and the necessary input. It could mention edge cases like empty lists or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for 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?

The schema describes seasonId only as 'The unique numeric ID,' but the description adds critical meaning by specifying it must be a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent correctly source the parameter.

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 retrieves a list of currently active injuries and suspensions for players in a season. The verb 'Retrieves' specifies the action, and the resource is precisely injuries/suspensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on matches, stats, or tables.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get injury/suspension data) and includes a critical prerequisite (seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by specifying 'completed matches' and 'across an entire season,' but omits operational details like ordering, default behavior when limit is omitted, or response content. This is a minimal but not rich disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the critical prerequisite is clearly flagged. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key dependency, but leaves the optional 'limit' behavior underspecified (e.g., what happens if omitted). The absence of annotations and output schema raises the need for more operational detail, making this minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'limit' corresponds to 'X' in 'last X amount' and by explaining the provenance and necessity of seasonId through the getConfigTreeMini reference, which goes beyond the schema's field names.

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 states a specific action (retrieves last X completed matches) and resource (entire season), clearly differentiating it from team-specific 'last X' siblings like get_team_last_x. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, indicated by the [CRITICAL] tag. This tells the agent when it can use the tool (after calling getConfigTreeMini), but it does not discuss when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion cases, so it's clear context without explicit when-not.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'Retrieves' implies a read operation and the [CRITICAL] note adds a behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose return format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise, with a front-loaded purpose and a clearly marked critical note. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (broad metrics) and the required input source. It lacks fine-grained response details but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 already fully describes seasonId, but the description adds vital context by instructing the agent to obtain it from getConfigTreeMini. This goes beyond schema semantics and helps correct parameter sourcing.

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 retrieves aggregated seasonal league summary data with broad metrics, which distinguishes it from more detailed season tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides a clear context for use (when needing broad summary metrics) and an explicit prerequisite (valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini). It does not explicitly exclude other season-specific tools, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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

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

Even though no annotations are present, the description discloses the read-only nature via 'Retrieves statistics' and adds a crucial behavioral constraint: the seasonId must come specifically from getConfigTreeMini. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'unique numeric ID' by revealing an external dependency and a validity requirement, giving the agent actionable understanding of how the tool behaves.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second delivers an essential usage warning. Both sentences earn their place, making it efficient 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 that there is no output schema and only one parameter, the description covers the tool's main purpose and the critical prerequisite. It could be more detailed about the exact statistics returned (e.g., percentages, team names), but the example 'Over 2.5 goals' provides enough context for an agent to understand the expected data type. Overall, it is adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

The schema only describes seasonId as 'The unique numeric ID', which is generic. The description significantly enriches this by specifying that the ID must be a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini, thus providing the source and validity condition. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the added source guidance raises it to a 4.

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 a specific action ('Retrieves statistics') and a well-defined resource ('how often teams breach specific goal lines'), with a concrete example (Over 2.5 goals). This distinguishes it from the many other season stats tools in the sibling list, such as get_season_goals or get_season_top_scorers, because it specifically targets over/under goal-line outcomes.

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?

The description explicitly provides a usage prerequisite: it requires a valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini, and even marks this as [CRITICAL]. This tells the agent when the tool is ready to be called (after obtaining seasonId) and which prior tool to use. It does not mention alternative tools or when to avoid this one, but the prerequisite is strong contextual guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only adds the prerequisite for seasonId. It does not disclose return format, error handling, or any side effects. Since it's a read operation, 'Retrieves' implies safety, but other behavioral context is missing.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second highlights a critical dependency. No redundancy, well 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key constraint. However, it could briefly mention what the response contains or differentiate from similar table tools, but the current level is sufficient for simple invocation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter, and the description adds value by specifying that the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, giving the agent a reliable source for a valid value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'full league standings and point tables' for a specific season, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_season_form_table or get_match_table_slice.

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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite (seasonId from getConfigTreeMini) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of alternative table-related tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states this is a retrieval operation and specifies that both past and future fixtures are included. However, it omits potential details like pagination or ordering, though these are less critical for a simple two-param lookup.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, scope, and qualifier. No filler or redundant content.

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 is simple (two required params, no output schema), and the description adequately covers its purpose and result scope. 'Match calendar' reasonably implies a list of fixtures, so no significant gaps are evident for a retrieval tool of this size.

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 both parameters described as 'The unique numeric ID.' The description adds the semantic that teamId and seasonId identify a team within a season, which is helpful but does not go beyond what the parameter names suggest.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a precise resource: the complete match calendar for a team in a season. Naming 'past and future fixtures' distinguishes it from siblings that target only upcoming or past matches.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when a full team fixture list for a season is needed) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not name sibling tools like get_team_next_x or get_season_fixtures2.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the operation is a retrieval, which implies read-only, and specifies the data granularity. However, it does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, or edge cases (e.g., if the team is not in the season).

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, no redundancy. The key information is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately captures what is returned (position progress over weeks) and the scope. It could benefit from stating the output format or ordering, but it is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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% but the parameter descriptions are generic ('The unique numeric ID'). The description adds context by linking 'specific team' to teamId and 'season' to seasonId, though it does not formally map parameters. This is a modest improvement over the schema.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieves' with a specific resource ('week-by-week table position progress') and scope ('specific team throughout a season'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_season_tables or get_season_form_table.

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?

The description implies usage when you need a team's position over time, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_season_tables instead for current standings. The context is clear but no alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or read-only nature, but only says 'retrieves analysis.' It does not describe what the analysis contains beyond vague 'time intervals' or how results are structured, leaving significant uncertainty.

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, focused sentence followed by a clearly marked critical note. It front-loads the core function and keeps the prerequisite separation, making it quick to scan and easy to understand 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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior and outputs. It omits return structure, parameter details, and any caveats about limit behavior, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, all parameter descriptions are generic 'unique numeric ID,' adding no real meaning. The tool description only mentions seasonId's provenance, not what teamId or limit represent. The description fails to compensate for the schema's low-quality parameter semantics.

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 retrieves analysis of when teams score or concede goals in a season, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on time intervals, but does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

The description provides a critical prerequisite (requires seasonId from getConfigTreeMini), which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over other season/team stat tools, nor provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a retrieval (implying read-only) and includes a critical dependency on getConfigTreeMini. However, it lacks information about error handling, response format, or sorting order, which would enhance transparency.

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 with a highlighted critical note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the critical note is concise. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and the essential prerequisite. It could mention that results are typically sorted descending by assists or include a note about seasonal scope, but these are minor gaps. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema fully documents the seasonId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, which helps the agent source the correct value. This goes beyond the schema's simple type/description.

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 retrieves the player leaderboard for most assists in a specific league season. The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'player leaderboard for most assists' are specific, and the scope 'within a specific league season' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_season_top_goals and get_season_top_cards.

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?

The description provides clear context: the tool is for retrieving assists leaderboards for a season. It emphasizes a critical prerequisite that a valid seasonId must come from getConfigTreeMini, which guides usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses a critical dependency on a valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini and implies a read-only operation through 'retrieves'. While it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error behavior, the dependency warning adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 with a clearly marked critical warning. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the core purpose and essential prerequisite.

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 description covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but lacks details about the return format, whether results are per-team or overall, and any limits on the number of players. Since there is no output schema, some additional context would be valuable, but the tool is relatively simple and the description is adequate.

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%, but both parameter descriptions are generic ('The unique numeric ID'). The description adds semantic meaning only for seasonId by linking it to getConfigTreeMini, while teamId remains vague. This is a marginal improvement over the generic schema descriptions.

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's function: retrieving players with the highest yellow and red card counts. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_season_top_goals and get_season_top_assists.

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?

The description includes a critical prerequisite (requires valid seasonId from getConfigTreeMini), which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions that would make it inappropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but lacks details about pagination, response format, error conditions, or rate limits. The critical note about seasonId is helpful but not enough to cover the absence of annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the critical dependency clearly flagged. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 and two required parameters, the description is minimal. It explains the purpose and the seasonId dependency but omits any mention of teamId, output details, or limitations. It's adequate for a simple lookup but leaves gaps for a new agent.

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% but both parameter descriptions are minimal ('The unique numeric ID'). The tool description adds context for seasonId (obtained from getConfigTreeMini) but says nothing about teamId, leaving its role ambiguous. This is a slight improvement over the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves top goalscorers for a season, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguished from sibling tools like get_season_top_assists and get_season_top_cards by focusing on goals, though it doesn't clarify whether teamId filters or is required for team-specific results.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (seasonId from getConfigTreeMini) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_season_goals or get_season_top_assists. There are no explicit use cases or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool retrieves data and requires a seasonId. It does not explain return value structure, potential performance implications, error conditions, or other operational behavior, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, and the critical prerequisite is clearly flagged. Every word earns its place; there is no wasteful repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, examples, and prerequisite. However, with no output schema and no annotation fallback, it lacks details about the return format and does not address alternative tools, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting among many season-stat siblings.

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 input schema already fully documents seasonId as a numeric ID, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds valuable context by stating that the seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, which clarifies valid parameter provenance and improves semantic understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and identifies the resource ('statistical aggregates for teams across a season') with concrete examples, making the primary function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar season stats siblings like get_season_team_scoring_conceding or get_season_venue_stats.

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?

The description includes a critical prerequisite ('Requires a valid seasonId obtained from getConfigTreeMini'), which is helpful usage context. But it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or any exclusion criteria, so guidance remains mostly implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral dependency (seasonId from getConfigTreeMini) and 'Retrieves' implies read-only. However, it doesn't specify return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits, leaving some uncertainty.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. The [CRITICAL] annotation effectively highlights the dependency without extra fluff.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides purpose, example data types, and the critical dependency. It doesn't describe return shape or error behavior, but the information given is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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% but both parameter descriptions are generic ('The unique numeric ID'). The description adds meaningful context: it reveals that seasonId must be obtained from getConfigTreeMini, and the tool name/title implies venueId refers to a stadium/venue, going beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 retrieves 'detailed stadium and venue statistics for a season' with examples (attendance, capacities). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target venue stats.

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?

The description explicitly states the critical prerequisite: a valid seasonId must come from getConfigTreeMini. This provides clear context for when the tool can be invoked. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the dependency is the key usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' but adds no behavioral details such as default count if omitted, error handling, or rate limits. The requirement for a valid teamId is stated, but other traits are absent.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. However, the critical note is redundant with the schema's required field and could be integrated more meaningfully.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is underspecified: it doesn't clarify the X parameter, default behavior, or differentiate from the extended variant. The sibling list shows many similar tools, making this incomplete for selection.

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 descriptions are both 'The unique numeric ID.', which is ambiguous and doesn't differentiate count from teamId. The description says 'last X' but never explicitly maps X to the count parameter. With 100% coverage but unhelpful content, the description fails 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'last X match results for a specific team', clearly distinguishing it from match detail/stat tools. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to get_team_last_x_extended or get_season_last_x, so sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 usage context is provided beyond a critical note that a valid teamId is required. It doesn't say when to use this vs get_team_last_x_extended or get_team_next_x, or any exclusions. The 'CRITICAL' note is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval and mentions a valid teamId prerequisite, but it does not describe the return format, what data is included in the statistical breakdown, or behavior on invalid input.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function immediately. The critical note about teamId is useful and kept to one clause, with no extraneous information.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet promises a 'detailed statistical breakdown'. The description does not define what 'last X' means, how many matches are included, or what form the breakdown takes, making it insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameter details: teamId is required and described as 'The unique numeric ID'. The description's warning about a valid teamId adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Retrieves a detailed statistical breakdown of a team's last X matches', specifying both the action and the resource. The word 'extended' hints at differentiation from the sibling get_team_last_x, though the description could more explicitly contrast the two.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_team_last_x, get_match_stats, get_team_next_x). The only instruction is 'Requires a valid teamId', which is a precondition rather than usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a valid teamId is required, but does not explain what happens with invalid IDs, result ordering, pagination, or the meaning of the limit parameter. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by a critical note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description covers the core purpose and the critical teamId requirement, but omits important context such as the meaning of the limit parameter and the structure of the response. Given there is no output schema, some description of expected results would improve completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, both parameter descriptions are identical and unhelpful ('The unique numeric ID.'). The tool description only clarifies teamId, leaving limit ambiguous. This is misleading and adds no real semantic value beyond the schema fields.

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 a specific action ('Retrieves upcoming scheduled fixtures') and a specific resource ('for a specific team'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_last_x (past fixtures) and get_season_fixtures (all fixtures).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes a required teamId, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Retrieves' (read-only) and specifies 'active' streaks, but does not mention potential errors, response format, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., what a streak object contains), which is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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% (teamId described as 'The unique numeric ID.'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that the teamId identifies the team whose streaks are retrieved, matching the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('active win, loss, draw, or clean sheet streaks for a specific team'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_form or get_team_last_x by focusing on streaks.

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?

The description implies usage when needing active streaks for a specific team, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where other team-related tools would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('retrieves') and specifies the output concept (formation, frequent lineup), but does not disclose edge cases, return format, or behavior when no data exists. Since it is a read tool, the lack of mutation warnings is acceptable, but additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, resource, and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unrelated details.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the inputs, the action, and the expected return concept. However, it does not mention potential data availability limitations or the exact composition of the 'standard formation' and 'starting lineup' (e.g., whether substitutes are included), which are minor gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 descriptions for teamId and seasonId are generic ('The unique numeric ID.'), providing no semantic meaning. The tool description compensates by clarifying that teamId refers to a team and seasonId to a season, mapping the parameters to their real-world roles. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('standard formation and most frequent starting lineup') scoped to 'a team within a specific season'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_match_squads or get_season_team_fixtures.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as get_match_squads or get_team_last_x, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return format, pagination, or any operational constraints beyond input validity, leaving the agent to infer standard read behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical input note. Both sentences earn their place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and required inputs. However, it leaves ambiguity around the meaning of 'recent' and the 'count' parameter, and does not differentiate strongly enough from sibling tools given the lack of usage guidance.

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 descriptions for all parameters are generic ('The unique numeric ID.'), providing no semantic meaning. The description text adds that teamId and opponentId are required, clarifying their role as team identifiers, but the 'count' parameter remains unexplained. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with the description offering limited added value.

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 retrieves direct head-to-head recent history between two specific teams. The verb 'Retrieves' plus the resource 'head-to-head recent history' makes the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like get_team_last_x or get_match_form.

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. The only additional note is that valid teamId and opponentId are required, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is retrieval (read-only) and highlights the need for a valid tournamentId, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or response format. This is minimally adequate for a simple read tool.

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 with a bold critical note. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any fluff or redundant detail.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (list of past champions and winners) and the required input. It lacks details about output structure or edge cases, but is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 fully describes tournamentId with a clear description, so coverage is 100%. The description adds the requirement that the ID be valid, which is a minor addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource: a historical list of past champions and winners for a unique tournament. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on tournament winners.

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?

The description implies usage when you need past tournament winners, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The critical note about a valid tournamentId is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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