racingandsports_match_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the return shape is the site's XHR feed and it may be Cloudflare-challenged from datacenter IPs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing deployment-relevant behavior.

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, using three short lines to convey purpose, return shape, auth, and a network caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with the main purpose 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, that no auth is needed, and a potential environmental issue. It doesn't detail the exact feed structure, but that is acceptable for a straightforward list 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the empty schema is fully covered by the context signal of 100% schema_description_coverage.

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 tool as a sports match list for non-racing fixtures, distinguishing it from racing-focused siblings like racingandsports_todays_racing. The phrase 'the site's non-racing fixtures feed' provides specific scope, though the site itself is unnamed, 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?

The description gives a practical usage caveat about Cloudflare challenges from datacenter IPs and notes that no auth is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other match-list tools or exclude any alternatives, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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