Fotbollsresor.eu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Bekräftad' signals only officially confirmed lineups are returned, and the caveat about possibly being the most recently played match discloses a data-freshness limitation the agent could not infer from the schema or 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core fact (confirmed lineup plus match/date) is front-loaded. Nothing to trim, though the terseness is arguably part of the coverage gap rather than pure efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so only partially ('med match och datum') and says nothing about how many players, formation, or substitution data. For a 2-required-parameter lookup with zero schema documentation, it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. 'league' is an enum and self-explanatory, but 'team_id' is a bare integer with no explanation of which ID system it expects. Nothing in the description clarifies either 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?

States a specific resource (confirmed starting eleven) plus the accompanying data (match and date). No sibling tool overlaps (offers, standings, match search), so it is distinguishable, though the verb is only implied via the title rather than in the sentence itself.

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 only guidance is the caveat 'Kan vara den senast spelade matchens elva', which hints at which match the lineup comes from but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what happens when no confirmed lineup exists.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts: only exact (not partial) match_id values resolve, and results are meant to be compared within the same package content. It says nothing about result volume or what happens when no offers exist.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the resource and key come first, the comparison rule second. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so structure is good but content is thin.

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 read tool with rich annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and no statement of what an 'erbjudande' contains or how the 'paketinnehåll' grouping appears in the response, an agent still cannot anticipate the result shape.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description has to carry the meaning. It does add value by specifying the value must be an exact match_id taken from search_matches, but gives no format, example, or constraint guidance (the schema caps it at 160 chars) to help construct or validate the 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?

States the resource (erbjudanden/offers) and the precise scoping key (exakt match_id), and explicitly links it to search_matches as the source of that id. It is clearly distinguishable from get_lineup, get_standings and search_matches, though the second sentence about 'paketinnehåll' is a comparison hint rather than a purpose statement.

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 'från search_matches' implies the prerequisite workflow (obtain match_id from search_matches first) and 'exakt' implies a fuzzy/partial id will not work, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, nor a stated alternative for broader offer lookups.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the result carries team_id, enabling chaining into get_lineup. It does not describe sorting or completeness of the table.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the most useful detail (team_id for get_lineup) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the missing parameter and return-shape detail, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information; it discloses only team_id and implies a league table, leaving fields like position, points and ordering undocumented. It also omits that 'league' is required and limited to four competitions.

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 required parameter 'league' is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The enum itself is self-explanatory and enumerates the four supported leagues, so the schema still carries the agent, but the description adds nothing about 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?

States the resource (league table/standings) and a key returned field (team_id), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_lineup, get_offers and search_matches. It is not a verb-first statement, but the resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The reference to team_id 'för get_lineup' implies the intended workflow (fetch standings, then feed team_id into get_lineup), which is useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison to siblings such as search_matches.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: results are restricted to upcoming matches, text is matched against team names, and paging continues via next_offset — the latter matters because there is no output schema to reveal that field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three terse sentences with the scope front-loaded and the pagination hint last, no filler. The style is telegraphic fragments, which is efficient but slightly cryptic for a non-Swedish reader.

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?

With six undocumented parameters, no output schema and no per-parameter annotation, the definition should explain the date range filters, the limit cap and the league values. Instead it covers only the free-text search and paging, leaving an agent unable to use the filters 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters. The description explains only query (searches home/away team names) and offset (next page via next_offset); from, to, limit (max 30) and the league enum are left entirely undocumented, so four of six parameters carry no semantics anywhere.

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

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

States the resource and scope concretely: upcoming matches together with their listed offers, and that free text matches home and away team names. That is a specific verb+resource, and the mention of 'erbjudanden' hints at the boundary with get_offers, though the sibling is never named or routed to explicitly.

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 word 'Kommande' implies the tool should be used for upcoming fixtures rather than historical results, and the last sentence gives explicit pagination guidance with next_offset. However, there is no statement of when to use this instead of get_offers, get_lineup or get_standings, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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