afl_matches_list

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 useful behavioral details: 'Auth: none needed', the exact return shape (meta.pagination and matches array with key fields), and an example combining status, startDate, and competitionId. These go beyond the annotations and schema.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence function overview, a return shape, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or vague filler.

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates well by documenting the return shape, providing a realistic example, and stating auth requirements. It doesn't explain pagination defaults or sort behavior, but those are adequately covered by the schema descriptions.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain each parameter. The example shows a practical combination of status, startDate, and competitionId, which adds some usage context, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 starts with 'List matches with filters' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly indicates the tool's list/filter purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like afl_match_get (singular match) and afl_matches_idmap (id mapping) by emphasizing filters and listing the filter dimensions (competition, season, round, team, status, date).

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 example 'Live + upcoming AFL matches from a date' provides concrete context for a common use case, implying when to use this tool (filtering matches by status/date). However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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