fotmob_matches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public match payload' but does not state explicitly that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe potential side effects, pagination, or output structure beyond the vague 'preserves upstream JSON shape.' This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have more complex behavior.

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 concise, with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose. There is no extraneous information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could have been more informative without becoming verbose.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells the agent what it does but does not explain the structure of the returned payload or any caveats (e.g., whether the timezone is required or how it affects results). It meets the minimum bar but leaves room for improvement.

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% with both 'date' and 'timezone' documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only rephrases the parameters. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 it returns FotMob matches for a given date and timezone, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'fotmob_match' by explicitly saying 'matches' (plural) for a date, implying a list, while 'fotmob_match' likely targets a single match. This is unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fotmob_match or fotmob_league. It lacks exclusions or conditions for selecting this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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