afl_broadcast_match_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the return structure, which is useful but does not disclose any other behavioral nuances (e.g., pagination behavior, data freshness). It adds moderate value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence plus a return structure and auth note. It front-loads the essential scope and provides the key information without fluff. Every element earns its place.

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 list tool with rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It provides the return schema, auth requirement, and scoping parameters. It could mention the source of compseason IDs (already in schema) or pagination behavior, but these are either covered elsewhere or minor. Overall, an agent can 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%, and all parameters (compseason, round, pageSize) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning; it only repeats 'compseason, round' in the first sentence, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (broadcast) and resource (match events) scoped to a compseason and round. It clearly conveys the tool's function, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like afl_broadcast_events or afl_broadcast_event_get, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this one.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as afl_broadcast_events (which may cover broader scopes) or afl_broadcast_event_get. The description simply states what it does without context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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