get_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-style retrieval of final scores and adds the 'input for settling bets' context, but it does not explicitly state read-only guarantees, permissions, or pagination behavior, so the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence plus a compact Args block; every line adds information and there is no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter query with an output schema, the description covers the date scope, league filtering, and the downstream use case. It lacks an explicit pointer to get_fixtures for non-finished matches, but the 'finished matches' framing largely compensates.

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 explain the parameters, and it does: date is specified as an ISO date with an example, and league is described as an optional substring filter. This goes beyond the schema's bare type and default information.

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 states that the tool returns finished matches with final scores for a single day and identifies it as the input for settling bets, which clearly distinguishes it from get_fixtures. The verb and resource scope are specific enough for an agent to know exactly what it retrieves.

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?

It clearly specifies the context — one day's finalized results, with an optional league filter — and ties it to the settle_picks workflow. It does not explicitly name when to use get_fixtures instead, but 'finished matches' implies the contrast with upcoming fixtures.

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