balldontlie_epl_games

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explicitly warns that the return shape is unverified and approximate, provides the auth key requirement, and advises inspecting the actual payload. This is honest and helpful, raising the score above baseline.

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 clear sections (Returns, NOTE, Example, Auth) and no filler. The caveat about unverified shape is necessary but makes it slightly longer than the minimum, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The return shape and auth requirements are covered, which is important given there is no output schema. However, the description does not explain behaviors such as what happens when no filters are provided, how filters combine, or the meaning of the openWorldHint. These gaps leave the tool contextually incomplete for a 5-parameter API.

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 100% with each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only an example using 'season' and a mention of pagination via 'next_cursor', but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already explains.

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 phrase 'Premier League fixtures and results' is a clear, specific statement of purpose with a verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling balldontlie tools for other leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB) and other Premier League data tools.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or compare with the many pl_* sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name and the phrase 'Premier League fixtures and results.'

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