pl_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are paginated and provides the return structure. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. The return structure is detailed but behavioral traits beyond that are minimal.

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 three sentences with front-loaded information. The first sentence clearly states purpose and filters, the second provides return structure, and the third gives an example. No wasted words, well-organized.

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 no output schema, the description must fully explain return values, which it does with a detailed structure example. It covers complex filtering and pagination. Minor gaps exist around pagination behavior and default limit, but overall it is fairly complete for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions most filter parameters (competition, season, matchweek, team, period, kickoff date range) and hints at enums for period (PreMatch/Live/FullTime). However, it omits sort, limit, and next_cursor, though pagination is implied. The description adds value but is incomplete.

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 'Primary fixtures/results feed' and enumerates specific filter parameters (competition, season, matchweek, team, period, kickoff date range). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_match or pl_matchweek_matches by being the primary feed with comprehensive filtering.

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 introduces itself as 'Primary fixtures/results feed' implying it is the go-to tool for match lists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pl_match for a single match or pl_matchweek_matches for a specific week. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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