pl_team_form

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and mutability. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return shape, which are useful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential response size limits or edge cases, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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: two lines of summary plus a return type and auth note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes only essential supplementary details, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It omits a precise definition of 'recent' or how many matches are returned, but the tool is low complexity and the output structure is clarified, making it adequately complete.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, including values like 'Competition id (8)' and 'Season id (2025 = 2025/26)'. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it does not enhance understanding; 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 indicates the tool returns one team's recent matches/form within a season, listing the exact output fields. It distinguishes from most siblings by specifying 'within a season' and the return structure, but does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named pl_teamform, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No information on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings like pl_teamform or pl_team_stats are not mentioned, and there is no guidance on selecting this over them. The only implicit hint is 'recent matches/form,' but it lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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