afl_matches_list

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully inform. It describes the operation as listing (read) and shows return format, but omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether filters are optional. The example hints at scope but is not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences plus return format. Front-loaded purpose. Could be more structured but is efficient and no wasted words.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, the description is minimal. Provides return shape but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or parameter behavior. Adequate for a list tool but could be more thorough given complexity.

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 0%. Description lists filter categories (competition, season, round, team, status, date) that roughly map to schema parameters, but does not explain parameter names, formats, or allowed values. Adds some value but insufficient for 10 parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists matches with filters, specifying filter types and return structure. Distinct from sibling afl_match_get which retrieves a single match.

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?

Provides an example usage (Live + upcoming AFL matches from a date) but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like afl_match_get or other list tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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