fotmob_transfers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful operational traits: fees are in EUR, the upstream returns 50 rows per page, and the hit count is capped at 10,000. It does not describe output formatting or potential error behavior, but for a read-only query tool these disclosures cover the important quirks.

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 four tight sentences, each adding non-redundant information: purpose, fee unit, ID discovery, and pagination cap. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 an 11-parameter optional-filter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: what it returns, unit of fees, how to discover IDs, and pagination limits. It does not explain the default behavior when no filters are supplied or describe the response structure, but the schema covers filter semantics and the description is strong enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of fee parameters by stating 'Fee values are in EUR' and the page parameter with '50 rows per page', though the schema already documents these details (e.g., max_fee says 'in EUR', page says '50 rows per page'). The added hit-cap and ID-discovery context adds moderate value beyond the 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 verb and resource: 'Returns confirmed transfers, rumours, or popular transfers' and names the domain as 'FotMob transfer center'. It is clear an agent can tell this is the transfers tool among many fotmob siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related fotmob tools like fotmob_matches or fotmob_news, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives useful prerequisite guidance: 'Use fotmob/leagues and fotmob/search to discover league and team ids.' It clearly implies this tool is for transfer-center data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus a sibling for the same kind of data, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is more implied than explicit.

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