get_team_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns both past and upcoming fixtures, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose limits on date range, pagination, or response format. The description adds value beyond the schema but lacks completeness.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes examples without being verbose. Every part is necessary and no word 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?

Given no output schema, the description could mention what the response contains (e.g., fixture details). The tool has 3 parameters and requires sport and slug; the description covers the slug well but not the return value. For a moderately complex tool with no output schema, a 3 is appropriate as it meets minimum viability but has 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 coverage is 67% (only 'sport' has a description). The description explains the 'slug' parameter with examples, adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not describe 'limit', which is already well-typed with min/max. The description compensates for the missing schema description for 'slug', making the parameter semantics 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a team's past and upcoming fixtures, and provides examples of valid slugs. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team schedule'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_matches (which likely returns all matches) by specifying a team slug.

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 explains when to use this tool (to get fixtures for a specific team) and gives examples of slug values. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context with sibling tools implies it is for team-specific queries. A 4 is appropriate as it provides clear context without exclusions.

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