Get Today's Matches

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds the auth requirement and enumerates the returned content (teams, league, kickoff, line snapshots, picks), but it does not address edge cases such as empty results or data freshness. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the core purpose, list the key returned fields, and state the auth caveat. There is no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming the entity types (teams, league, kickoff), the analytical data (line snapshots), and the picks association. It omits only explicit edge-case behavior, such as handling days with no matches, which is a minor gap for a simple read-only tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics with 100% coverage. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'today's matches' along with the included fields (teams, league, kickoff, line snapshots, picks). It implies differentiation from siblings like flab_matches_upcoming and flab_picks_today by temporal scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Public — no auth' provides clear access guidance, and 'today's' implies the temporal use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any reference to alternative tools, leaving the agent to rely on inference rather than direct guidance.

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