nbl_next_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it discloses the return shape ({type, count, data:[...]}), notes the tool only returns upcoming matches (not completed), flags the empty off-season behavior, and states that no auth is needed. This goes well beyond the structured 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 and well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, immediately provides the alternative tool for related cases, then lists the return format and auth requirement. Every sentence provides useful information without 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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only tool: it explains the scope (upcoming matches per season), gives return structure, warns about off-season emptiness, names the sibling tool for full fixtures, and confirms no auth is needed. The schema fully documents the sole parameter, so no gaps remain.

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 schema description covers the only parameter 'year' with detailed semantics (season start year mapping to NBL seasons and required URL path component). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: returns 'Upcoming matches across all NBL teams for a season.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool nbl_schedule by explicitly noting that the full fixture including completed games is available via nbl_schedule, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: use nbl_schedule for the full fixture including completed games. It also notes that the result may be 'empty in the deep off-season,' giving context about expected data availability.

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