footballdatauk_season

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses that ALL VALUES ARE STRINGS, dates are DD/MM/YYYY, and the C suffix in odds columns indicates closing odds. It also specifies auth is not needed and provides a sample output structure, which are valuable 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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a sample return, explicit notes on types/date/odds, an example, and auth. Every sentence contributes practical information without padding, and the essential detail is front-loaded.

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 enumerates most columns and explains the key formatting pitfalls (strings, date format, closing odds naming). The sample return with '…' suggests some columns are omitted, but the core data shape is clear. Auth and example are included, making it quite complete for a simple season-retrieval 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 already covers 100% parameter descriptions, including season format and division codes. The description adds a concrete example with 'season': '2425' and 'division': 'E0', and references the division list in the schema. This slightly augments the schema, so a strong baseline score 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 clearly states the tool returns one league season with every match, scores, shots, cards, and closing odds from ~10 bookmakers. It explicitly calls it 'The backtesting dataset', distinguishing it from other football data tools like footballdataorg_* or pl_*. The included example and field list reinforce the purpose.

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 provides strong context by labeling this as 'The backtesting dataset' and emphasizing closing odds, implying it is for backtesting scenarios. It gives an example invocation, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Schema documents division codes, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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