wta_tournament_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed,' the approximate result size (~302 matches), and the field structure of the return payload. This gives the agent a good sense of what the response contains without needing to invoke the tool.

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 long but well-structured: a clear opening line, a return field list, an example, and an auth note. Every section adds useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the example is concise. Slightly verbose due to the full return field list, but that is justified given there is no output schema.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive picture: purpose, return fields, example, and auth requirements. It covers the essential context an agent needs to decide to use the tool and interpret results. It does not address pagination or filtering, but the tool appears to return all matches at once, and the openWorldHint annotation mitigates concerns about data completeness.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (groupId and year) with 100% coverage. The description adds an example mapping (groupId 901, year 2025) and clarifies that groupId comes from wta_tournaments, but this is marginal value beyond the schema. 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 states the tool returns all matches/results for a specific tournament edition identified by group id and year. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like wta_tournament (single tournament info) and wta_player_matches (matches for a player) by explicitly scoping to one tournament edition. The example (AO 2025) further reinforces the purpose.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use for draws + results.' This tells the agent when to select this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the example and the tool name itself make the context clear, which is sufficient for a clear but not fully exhaustive guideline.

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