apisports_football_h2h

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds valuable context: the auth requirement (API_SPORTS_KEY) and the critical caveat that the return shape comes from vendor docs and is unverified. This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it doesn't address rate limits or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear labels (Returns, NOTE, Example, Auth) and front-loads the purpose. The unnecessary repetition of 'SHAPE FROM VENDOR DOCS' and the confusing 'Also answers this:' line prevent a perfect score, but overall it remains concise and mostly useful.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by giving the return shape (even if unverified) and relating it to apisports_football_fixtures. It also covers auth and provides a concrete example. Missing details like pagination or error conditions are minor for such a simple read-only lookup.

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's example ('h2h': '33-34', 'last': 10) reinforces the parameter format but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema's clear descriptions of all three 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns every past meeting between two clubs, using an implicit 'get' verb and resource 'head-to-head match history.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying football and noting the same fixture shape as apisports_football_fixtures. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The line 'Also answers this: apitennis_h2h, nba_stats_call, nbl_match_outcomes' is ambiguous—it may hint at alternatives but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over them. Usage is implied primarily by the tool name and domain.

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