timezone.football

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the fixed 14-day forward window, that kickoff times are rendered in local time, and that channel info is country-conditional.

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 dense sentence with the core scope and the 14-day window front-loaded before the filter list. No filler, though the single-sentence form packs a lot of clauses without visual separation.

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 does supply the shape of a result (match + local kickoff + channel) which is essential. For a 6-parameter, zero-required query tool it is close to complete; the only meaningful omission is pagination/limit behavior and default ordering.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented; the description's 'filtered by date, competition, team or country' largely restates them. It adds the useful interplay between country and the returned channel, but says nothing about the limit parameter, which is undocumented in the schema too.

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 verb and resource ('List upcoming football matches') plus the scope (next 14 days) and the returned fields (kickoff in local time, channel). It does not name its siblings watch_competition or where_to_watch, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

'optionally filtered by date, competition, team or country' implies the use cases, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over where_to_watch (channel lookup) or watch_competition (per-competition view). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses the 90-day verification window and warns that prices are only returned when freshly verified, which tells the agent results may be partially empty. It adds useful provenance context (source and date checked) but says nothing about coverage gaps for competitions with no rights data at all.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core answer (rights holder) and appends the qualifiers. Every clause carries information — price, verification, links — though the trailing 'links to the country page and the price comparison' is slightly run-on and could be tighter.

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 steps in to describe the return payload (rights holder, price with source and date, links) and the freshness rule, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. It falls short only on how to disambiguate against the sibling where_to_watch and on what an empty/unverified result looks like.

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% and both parameters carry inline descriptions with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description implies country and competition semantics (season, per-country rights) but adds no format, normalization, or disambiguation guidance 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 frames a specific question — who holds the rights to a named competition in a named country this season — and enumerates what comes back (rights holder, cheapest verified monthly price, source/date, links). The resource is unambiguous even though it is phrased as an answer rather than a verb. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling where_to_watch, which reads as overlapping in 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the closely-named sibling where_to_watch, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The only scoping signal is implicit in the two required parameters (competition + country). An agent facing 'how do I watch X in Y' has to guess between this and where_to_watch.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results include kickoff in local time, the licensed channel/stream, subscription prices 'where known' (a caveat that prices may be missing), and a link to a full page — useful disclosure for a tool with no output schema.

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 purpose and output contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the coverage envelope in the second. The league list is somewhat long but serves as a scope boundary; every sentence carries information, no 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns — and it does, enumerating local-time kickoff, channel/stream, prices and link. Combined with full schema coverage for all three parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling routing (watch_competition vs matches) remains unresolved.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that 'country' scopes the answer and that kickoff is returned in local time, but it says nothing about the optional timezone override or accepted country formats beyond what the schema already states.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Find where ... are shown live') with a concrete resource (team fixtures or a single match) and names the output fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling watch_competition: the long league list it claims to cover ('Premier League, La Liga, Serie A...') plausibly overlaps with that tool, leaving the boundary 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?

Usage context is implied by examples ('a specific match like Arsenal v Chelsea'), so an agent can infer the input shape, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of watch_competition or matches as alternatives. The agent must guess which of the three watching tools to call for a competition-level query.

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