nbl_next_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (type, count, data with fields) and that results may be empty in off-season. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/idempotent or discuss side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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: two sentences plus a return format specification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then provides the alternative tool and return details.

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's simplicity (one param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return structure and references the sibling nbl_schedule for full fixtures. The off-season emptiness note adds context. Minor gap: does not explain the year parameter's range or default.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter 'year' represents the season (e.g., 'for a season'), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's integer type. No format example or default value is provided, but the single required parameter is straightforward.

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 upcoming matches across all NBL teams for a season, with a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource ('upcoming matches'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling nbl_schedule by noting it excludes completed games.

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 clear context: use this tool for upcoming matches only, and use nbl_schedule for the full fixture including completed games. It also warns that the result may be empty in deep off-season, which helps the agent avoid confusion. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or other conditions.

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