pl_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states pagination, provides the exact return structure with fields, notes 'Auth: none needed', and gives a working example. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and filters, followed by a return schema, a concrete example, and auth note. Each element earns its place, though the response block is slightly verbose.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates richly: it declares pagination, provides a full return object shape, includes an example query, and confirms auth is unnecessary. This gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly, even without an output schema.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enhances this by listing the filterable categories and providing a concrete example showing how to combine competition:8, season:2025, and matchweek:1. It also clarifies the period enum values. This adds integration-level meaning beyond raw schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Primary fixtures/results feed', clearly identifying the tool as a list/query endpoint for match data. It names the specific resource (fixtures/results) and enumerates filter dimensions (competition, season, matchweek, team, period, kickoff date range), distinguishing it from singular siblings like pl_match or specific pl_matchweek_matches.

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 phrase 'Primary fixtures/results feed' signals this is the default choice for match listings, and the example shows a concrete usage (2025/26 matchweek 1). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like pl_match or pl_matchweek_matches, nor does it mention exclusions.

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