nbl_match_outcomes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the return format (type, count, data array with per-match rows) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose clearly, and the second provides return structure. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful return structure. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, or what specific fields appear in each outcome row. For a simple retrieval tool, this is mostly complete.

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% and the description only implicitly references 'season' without detailing the required 'year' or optional 'seasonType' parameters. It does not explain valid values or defaults, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the parameter names alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns per-team match outcomes (win/loss rows) for a season, specifying use for head-to-head and form analysis. This distinguishes it from siblings like nbl_ladder (standings) or nbl_team_stats (aggregate stats).

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?

Description identifies use cases ('for head-to-head and form analysis'), but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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