footballdataorg_competition_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the requirement of an API key (403 without), the unverified nature of the returned shape (from vendor docs, not tested live), and the instruction to inspect the actual payload. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes essential details: auth requirement, return shape, a caveat about unverified data, and an example. It is somewhat redundant with the auth notice appearing twice ('NEEDS A KEY (403 without)' and 'Auth: needs your own key...'), which prevents a perfect score, but overall it is well-organized and informative.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return shape (filters, resultSet, competition, matches with nested fields), a concrete example, auth requirements, and a warning about unverified field names. It also covers the key filters (matchday, season, date range, status). This is comprehensive for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond an illustrative example (competition=PL, matchday=1). With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'All matches in one competition,' which clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving matches scoped to a single competition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like footballdataorg_matches (all matches) and footballdataorg_competition (competition details). The example reinforces the scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need matches for a specific competition, with optional filters like matchday, season, date range, or status. It provides a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'for all matches across competitions, use footballdataorg_matches').

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