nbl_match_outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: the response structure ('type, count, data'), the per-team grouping of outcome rows, and the absence of auth requirements. It also specifies the season-start-year convention via parameter documentation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first sentence states what it does, the second describes the return shape, and the third clarifies auth requirements. No filler or repetition of schema details beyond helpful context.

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 a simple 2-parameter schema, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the resource, the grouping, the response envelope, and auth. It doesn't detail exact row fields (e.g., home/away scores), but the description says 'per-match outcome rows' and the schema handles the input side. Slightly more detail on what fields are in each row would push it to 5.

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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the year parameter's season-start semantics ('2025 = NBL26') and why it is required ('part of the URL path'). It also gives context for the seasonType parameter by showing example enum values inline (regular, finals, preseason), reinforcing 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 starts with 'Per-team match outcomes (results) for a season — win/loss rows by team, for head-to-head and form analysis.' This clearly identifies the resource (match outcomes), the grouping (per-team), and the intended analytic use cases (head-to-head and form analysis). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nbl_ladder (standings), nbl_schedule, and nbl_next_matches by focusing on historical win/loss rows per team.

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 explains the purpose of the data ('for head-to-head and form analysis'), which strongly implies when to use it. It also includes a return shape and notes that no auth is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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