Kickjolly Football

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 bar is lower. The description usefully adds that it returns only the readers' brief and not the full publisher article, which is real scope information beyond the structured hints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and key, followed by the return scope. 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?

For a single-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers the identifier and the return scope. The main residual gap is that it doesn't route to the sibling 'search' when the ID is unknown.

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 one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry meaning, and it does: it identifies the id as a 24-character story ID, matching the schema's pattern. It could have noted the hex format explicitly but the semantic role is clear.

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 (Read) and resource (a public story) with the lookup key (24-character story ID). It is distinguishable from the sibling 'search' by implying direct-ID retrieval, though it never names search as the contrasting alternative.

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 is implied — call it when you already have a story ID — and the 'no full publisher article' note hints at a scope limit. It never states when to use this versus search, nor any 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 declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context those fields do not carry: results are cached and stale-ness must be judged via updated timestamps, which is a genuinely useful operational caveat for a data-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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the optional filter front-loaded. Every clause carries 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?

For a simple annotated read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and how fresh the data is. It nonetheless leaves the status enum and pagination/limit behavior unexplained, which is a real gap given the thin schema coverage.

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 33%: only 'club' is documented, and the description corroborates it as an optional single-club filter. The 'limit' and 'status' parameters receive no explanation in either place, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Read cached public fixtures and results') plus scope ('optionally for one club'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with the siblings (fetch, search, get_transfers, list_clubs), so an agent must infer the boundary 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?

'Optionally for one club' implies the filtering use case, and the word 'cached' hints this is not the live-data path, implying 'fetch' for fresh data. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool is named, so routing remains inferred.

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 openWorld=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are 'public' (no auth implied) and hints at returned content (labels, story context), but says nothing about pagination or the effect of limit.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing clause about 'reporting labels and linked story context' is slightly vague rather than informative.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape ('transfer room summaries', 'labels') undefined and omits any behavior for the undocumented limit parameter. Nothing is misleading, but gaps remain.

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 only 50% — 'club' is documented in the schema while 'limit' is not, and the description mentions neither parameter. With no description-side compensation for the coverage gap, the agent gets no extra meaning about filtering or result-size behavior.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public transfer room summaries') plus the data returned (labels, linked story context). However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like search or fetch, and 'transfer room' is domain jargon an agent may not resolve from the definition 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though siblings (search, fetch) plausibly overlap. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for transfers without any routing signal.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only clubs with 'published coverage' appear and that slugs are stable, which is useful behavioral context, but with no output schema it says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination.

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 with no filler. Slightly penalized because 'published coverage' is jargon left unexplained, which costs a little clarity for the space it saves.

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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool the core is present, but with no output schema the description should describe what a club entry contains and whether the list is complete or paginated. It only gestures at this via 'stable slugs'.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify or get wrong.

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 (List) and resource (clubs) plus a scoping qualifier ('with published coverage') and a hint at the key field returned ('stable slugs'). It is distinguishable from the generic siblings fetch/search/get_fixtures/get_transfers, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent can infer that this enumerates clubs, but nothing tells it whether to prefer this over 'search' for club 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the return (links, labels, citations, timestamps), but says nothing about pagination or result limits despite page/limit parameters.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return payload. No filler or 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 read-only search, annotations plus the return-field summary cover the essentials, but the description omits pagination semantics (page/limit interplay, max 20 results) and any hint of when to prefer `fetch` over `search`. Adequate but incomplete.

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 only 25% – just the `club` parameter is documented – so the description must compensate and does not. It alludes to keyword querying but gives no meaning for club, page, or limit beyond what the bare schema types imply.

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 (search public football stories) plus the return payload (canonical links, reporting labels, citations, timestamps). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `fetch`, which an agent would need to pick between.

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 'by keywords' hints at the intended input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or indication of how this differs from `fetch` or `list_clubs`. The agent must infer routing 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.