nbl_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, setting a safe read operation baseline. The description adds valuable context by detailing the exact return fields, stating 'Auth: none needed', and providing an example. It does not mention pagination or limits, but it is reasonably transparent for a simple schedule endpoint.

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 longer than a minimal one-liner, but the structure is well-organized: a summary sentence, a return-type block, an example, and an auth note. The detailed return structure is justified since no output schema exists, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by showing the complete return shape (including nested team objects), providing a concrete example, and stating authentication requirements. It covers the parameter options and the scope of data ('every match for one season'). Minor gaps like sort order or pagination are not critical for this type of endpoint.

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 100%, with both 'year' and 'seasonType' fully described, including the year-to-season mapping and the enum values. The description's example repeats this same information ('2025 = NBL26', 'seasonType=all') without adding new parameter meaning beyond 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'every match for one season' and enumerates the fields returned, distinguishing it from season-level metadata tools like nbl_seasons or match-outcome tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', which would make the purpose even more direct.

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: it is for retrieving a full season's schedule and results, with `seasonType=all` for the entire season. The example call further demonstrates the intended usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear.

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