datagolf_matchups

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 a return structure and the requirement for a DATAGOLF_KEY, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a compact return shape and auth note. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 description provides a partial output schema in the Returns block and notes the authentication requirement, which is helpful given no output schema exists. It covers the essential usage context, although it could be more explicit about how odds keys vary across sportsbooks or the live/historical nature of the data.

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 all parameters are already well-documented with enums and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, making this a baseline score.

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 that the tool provides tournament, round, and 3-ball matchup odds across sportsbooks plus Data Golf's model line. This is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling datagolf_matchups_all_pairings.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. While the purpose implies use for matchup odds in these markets, there is no contrast with sibling tools like datagolf_matchups_all_pairings or historical matchup tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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