consensus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: outcome is null until minCohort tippers have picked, and the expert cohort is weighted by Weltrang ranking.

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 tight sentences: what you get, how to scope the call, and the one edge-case caveat. Front-loaded with the payload description and no wasted framing.

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 return-value burden and largely discharges it by naming the three output components and the null-outcome condition. It could still note pagination or ordering for the list form, but nothing critical is missing.

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 enums (mode, status) are self-documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the concrete id format example, which is mildly helpful but largely restates the schema's filter 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get the crowd consensus) and enumerates exactly what is returned: 1X2 shares, top-3 exact scorelines, and a Weltrang-weighted expert cohort. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from get_crowd_record, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling's name 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?

It tells the agent how to select scope: pass an id for a single match, or mode/status filters for a list. That is real routing guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over get_crowd_record or list_matches, nor any 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable non-obvious behavior: the feature is not published yet and the tool returns available:false until the archive is wired in, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty/negative result as 'the crowd is never right'.

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: the first defines the metric, the second delivers the critical availability caveat. No filler, and the most important operational fact is not buried.

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 at least tells the agent what to expect in the failure case (available:false). It does not describe the shape of a successful response (per-competition/season record fields), which is a minor gap given the tool is currently non-functional anyway.

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%, with the enum values and the season format already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how mode or season affect the aggregation (e.g., whether omitting mode merges results), so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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 states a specific metric — the crowd majority's hit rate, broken down by competition and season — which is more concrete than a generic 'get stats'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the get_consensus sibling, but the historical/aggregate framing is clear enough to distinguish the resource.

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: consult this when you want historical crowd accuracy. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_consensus or how to combine them, and no mention of the optional filtering behavior for agents weighing mode/season.

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, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the result set — the exact fields returned and the deliberate exclusion of consensus fields. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or emptying behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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, zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Every clause earns its place by either describing the response or steering the agent to the right sibling.

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, filter-only list tool with complete schema descriptions, the only real gap would be the return shape — and the description covers it by enumerating the returned fields and noting the omission of consensus data even though no output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are enums with their own descriptions ('Restrict to one game mode; omit for all'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when structured fields are complete.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list matches in the feed) with an explicit enumeration of what the records contain (teams, kickoff, lock deadline, status, result) and an explicit statement of what they omit (consensus fields). It names the sibling get_consensus, so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use this for raw match data, use get_consensus for the crowd's picks. The alternative and its selecting condition are stated explicitly. It does not address the second sibling get_crowd_record or spell out any when-not condition, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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