laliga_matches

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the mixed-bag behavior of subscription alone, the return field structure, and auth requirements. It does not contradict annotations, though it leaves the 'more' unlocked by the key unspecified.

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?

Every sentence contributes: what it does, the critical parameter warning, return format, a concrete example, and auth note. Well-structured with clear formatting for the example.

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?

For a list endpoint with generous annotations and schema coverage, the description provides the return structure, example usage, auth notes, and behavioral caveats. No output schema exists, so the return-field list is essential and included.

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 already documents all parameters, but the description adds the critical caveat that subscription alone returns mixed data and clarifies that competition=primera-division yields the full 380-match set. This compensates beyond schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Matches feed' and details that it returns LaLiga matches with specific competition slugs, making its purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like laliga_match (singular) or other leagues' match feeds, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides clear context: the IMPORTANT note instructs users to pass competition= for real competition matches and warns that subscription= alone returns mixed results. Includes a concrete example for a matchweek, but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.

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