wta_tournament_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return structure and typical volume (~302 matches) but lacks details on data freshness, pagination, authentication, or potential performance costs. The behavior is implied to be a read-only query.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then an example. Every sentence is valuable and there is no redundancy.

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 description includes a sample return structure, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. It covers the essential inputs and outputs but omits details like error handling, pagination, or data freshness. For a straightforward list tool, this is adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that groupId is for tournament edition and gives an example (AO 2025), but it does not clarify what groupId represents numerically or how to obtain it. Year is self-explanatory.

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 'All matches/results for one tournament edition' with parameters groupId and year. It specifies the scope and distinguishes from sibling tools like wta_tournament and wta_tournament_players by focusing on match-level data.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use for draws + results' and provides an example (Australian Open 2025). However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternative tools for different needs.

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