apisports_football_h2h

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

Beyond the annotations stating read-only and idempotent behavior, the description discloses the return shape, warns that the shape is unverified from vendor docs and not tested against live data, and notes that the caller must supply their own API key. This is valuable context that helps an agent set expectations and handle potential surprises.

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-organized with distinct sections: the core purpose line, return shape, vendor caveat, example, and auth note. Each section earns its place with no fluff, and the structure front-loads the most important information for fast scanning.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides the expected response shape, an illustrative example, and an honest caveat about its reliability. Combined with the annotations, this gives an agent sufficient context to call the tool and interpret results, making it complete for a read-only fixture-history endpoint.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The example {'h2h': '33-34', 'last': 10} adds a concrete illustration but does not introduce semantically unique information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Every past meeting between two clubs,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apisports_football_fixtures by referencing 'same fixture shape,' which contextualizes the output while making the h2h specialization clear.

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 makes the intended use case unambiguous ('Every past meeting between two clubs') and provides a concrete example for invoking the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately among the many sibling tools.

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