wc-2026

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the key behavioral detail that matches are filtered based on whether their local-time date matches the current date in the specified timezone. This clarifies the exact filtering logic, which is valuable 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second explains the date matching logic. No redundant information is present, and every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does, how it works, and what the filtering criteria are. An agent can confidently invoke the tool with this information.

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 single parameter 'timezone' is fully described in the input schema with the same text as the tool description. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline score of 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 clearly specifies that the tool finds FIFA World Cup 2026 matches happening today in a given timezone. The verb 'Find' and resource 'matches' are precise, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getCountrySchedule or getTeamMatches by focusing on today's 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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. While it implies usage for retrieving today's matches, it offers no guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools such as whensport_getCurrentlyLive.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that the tool returns display name and timezone, but does not conflict with annotations. No additional behavioral traits needed for a simple list 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?

Single sentence with all essential information: purpose, output details, and relation to sibling. No 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (slugs, name, timezone) and purpose. No missing context for a simple list 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?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so no gap exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool lists country slugs for getCountrySchedule, with display name and timezone. Verb+resource is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with matches or live data.

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?

Explicitly specifies the output is 'for getCountrySchedule,' guiding when to use it. Does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough that context is 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: returns 104 matches sorted chronologically with specific fields and timezone conversion. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but the context is sufficient for a read-only schedule 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 main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format: sorted matches with team names, time, venue, and round. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficient for its 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance: for 'limit' it suggests lowering for context-conscious calls, for 'timezone' it clarifies the fallback to the country's primary timezone. This adds value beyond the 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 specifically states it gets the FIFA World Cup 2026 schedule for a country, converted to local timezone, and returns sorted matches with details. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like getCountryList (for listing countries) and getMatch (for a specific 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 description implies usage for obtaining a country's schedule but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like whensport_getMatch or whensport_getCurrentlyLive. No direct guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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 already mark it as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail: the ~110-minute time window and 'before final whistle' condition, which clarifies the tool's scope beyond structured 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?

Single sentence of 18 words, no redundancy, front-loaded with key verb and noun. Perfectly concise for its simplicity.

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 essential purpose and time constraint. However, given no output schema, it could mention the return type (e.g., list of match objects) to be fully complete, but it's adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 4 is appropriate as the tool requires no input beyond the call itself.

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 that it returns FIFA World Cup matches currently in progress, with a specific time window. This differentiates it from siblings like whensport_findToday (all today's matches) or whensport_getMatch (specific 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 description implies use when needing currently live matches but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools exist for related queries, but no 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the match number range (1-104) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response size, pagination, or if partial results are possible. Given the annotations, minimal additional context is acceptable.

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 conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool is simple (2 params, no nesting). The description is adequate for a single-item retrieval, though it could hint at returned fields (e.g., teams, venue, date). With schema and annotations covering basics, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both 'number' and 'timezone' described in the schema. The description repeats the range for 'number' (1-104) but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states 'Get details of a single FIFA World Cup match by its match number (1-104).' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('details of a single FIFA World Cup match'), and specifies the method (by match number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whensport_findToday or whensport_getCountrySchedule, which have 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate that whensport_getCurrentlyLive might be better for live matches, or that whensport_getTeamMatches could be used to get all matches for a team. The description lacks explicit 'when' or 'when not' information.

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 already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds that matches include kick-off times and are limited to FIFA World Cup 2026, providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness or coverage of all teams.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is 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, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and for which competition. The lack of an output schema is not a problem since the description explains the return content. No obvious gaps given the context signals.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (team slug and timezone). The description adds the example of kick-off times but does not provide additional semantic information beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Get'), the resource (a specific team's FIFA World Cup 2026 matches), and specifies the scope (group-stage and knockout fixtures with kick-off times). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like whensport_getCountrySchedule and whensport_findToday.

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 does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no statement of when to prefer this over whensport_getCountrySchedule or whensport_getMatch, which would improve selection accuracy.

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