get_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns up to `limit` matches, includes scores/status/kickoff/time/logos, and is for live/recent matches. It does not mention pagination or any side effects, which are likely absent. The description is transparent enough for a read-only listing 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, both adding value. The first states the action and return fields; the second gives an example use case. No filler words; highly efficient.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and usage context. It could mention that results are limited to `limit` matches, but the schema already captures that. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (sport parameter is described). The description does not add new information about the `limit` parameter beyond what's in the schema (default 10, min 1, max 50). It doesn't explain that `limit` controls the max number of matches returned, but the schema's name and constraints are clear enough.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'live and recent matches for a sport', and specifies what is returned (scores, status, kickoff time, team logos). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a broad listing of matches, not detailed info or brackets.

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 provides a clear context: 'Good default for "what's happening in football right now?"' which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the sibling list suggests get_match_detail for detailed match info.

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