footballdataorg_matches

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

The description discloses that the envelope is verified live and works without a key (though keyless calls see no competitions), and explicitly warns that the match object shape is unverified and approximate. It also flags the score location in score.fullTime. These enrich the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations with genuine behavioral details.

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 longer than average but earns its length: a purpose sentence, detailed return shape, an unverified-shape caveat, an example, and auth instructions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized with clear sections.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a full return envelope and match object shape, plus a caveat about reliability. It covers auth, keyless behavior, and date constraints, making it sufficient to invoke correctly for a read-only list operation.

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 schema already describes all four parameters (dateFrom, dateTo, status, competitions), but the description's opening sentence clarifies that omitting competitions returns matches across every visible competition – a default behavior not in the schema. The example illustrates a minimal date-range call, adding practical usage beyond the schema.

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 states 'Matches across every competition your key can see, for a date range' – a specific resource (matches) with clear scope (all visible competitions, date range). It distinguishes from siblings like footballdataorg_competition_matches (competition-specific) and footballdataorg_match (single match).

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 phrase 'every competition your key can see' indicates this is the cross-competition, date-range tool, contrasting with competition-specific endpoints. No explicit alternative is named, but the scope is clear. The example and auth note provide context for when a key is needed.

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