squiggle_games

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details: the exact return structure, the note that no authentication is needed, and the data fields included. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a clear return type snippet, an example, and an authentication note. Every section earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple, and the description includes return fields, an example, and auth requirements, which compensates partially for the lack of an output schema. The schema handles parameter details, so the overall context is adequate, though it does not mention data freshness or size limits.

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% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example with q, year, and round, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema's already detailed parameter 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 clearly states the tool returns AFL fixture and result data with scores, venue, and completion state. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like squiggle_teams, squiggle_standings, and squiggle_ladder.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and shows an example with parameters, making it obvious when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the summary and the sibling tools.

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