laliga_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It warns about the 'subscription' parameter returning mixed content, but it does not discuss pagination with 'limit' and 'offset', auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The return format is given, but for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, more behavioral details are needed.

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 highly concise: a one-line summary, an IMPORTANT note, a return format line, and an example. Every sentence adds value. Information is front-loaded with the critical warning. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the key parameters (competition, gameweek, subscription) and lists the return fields. However, it lacks documentation for 'limit' and 'offset' (pagination) and does not provide a list of valid competition values. The example is specific to one competition and gameweek, which may not generalize. It covers essential usage but has gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'competition' (use to filter by competition), 'gameweek' (add for one matchweek), and 'subscription' (returns mixed bag alone). However, 'limit' and 'offset' are not mentioned at all. This partial coverage warrants a 3, as it adds significant value for three parameters but misses two.

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 identifies this as a 'Matches feed' that returns a list of matches. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'laliga_match' (which likely returns a single match) by specifying it provides a list. The verb 'feed' implies a continuous or queryable list, and the resource is explicitly 'matches'. The context of competition filtering and gameweek addition further clarifies its 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 explicit instructions: 'IMPORTANT: pass competition= to get a competition's matches — subscription= alone returns a mixed bag (incl. World Cup placeholders).' This tells when to use each parameter and warns against using subscription alone. It also explains how to get a specific matchweek with 'add gameweek= for one matchweek (10)'. This is strong guidance that helps the agent choose the correct approach.

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