wta_player_matches

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

With no annotations, the description only describes the output structure. It does not disclose behavior like data limits, performance, or error handling. The example 'recent matches' implies recency but the tool has no date filter.

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 moderately concise but includes a full output schema inline, which adds length. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be streamlined.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides the return structure. However, it lacks critical context such as error cases, pagination, or validation of the playerId parameter, making it incomplete for robust use.

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 has 0% coverage and the description does not explain the 'playerId' parameter. The example uses a name (Sabalenka) but does not clarify that the parameter is an ID, leaving ambiguity.

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 it returns a player's match history and provides the return structure. It is distinct from sibling tools like wta_player and wta_tournament_matches. The example solidifies understanding.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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