openligadb_matchdays

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, which the description complements by adding specifics like the exact return fields ([{groupID, groupName, groupOrderID}]), the meaning of groupOrderID, and that no auth is needed. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and well-structured: it explains the purpose, shows the return shape, provides a concrete example, and states auth requirements in a few lines. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple nature of this tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough: it covers return fields, example usage, and auth. It also provides cross-references to how the result connects to match tools. Minor details like the meaning of groupID are left unexplained, but the tool's scope is simple.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including the fact that season is required. The description adds an example with actual values and clarifies that groupOrderID is the matchday number, but doesn't add significant new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 that the tool returns the matchdays ('groups') in a season, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('matchdays in a season'). It distinguishes itself by clarifying OpenLigaDB's terminology ('Spieltag' = 'group') and indicates the return structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like openligadb_current_matchday, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example showing a Bundesliga season and the note that groupOrderID is used by 'match tools' imply when to use this tool, but the description doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly explained.

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