Get Upcoming Matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Public — no auth,' clarifying authentication needs. It does not describe output shape or edge cases, but this is minor for such a simple read-only 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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then provides the parameter constraint and auth context. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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 tool with one optional, fully described parameter, strong safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: purpose, time window, default, and auth. No critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'days' parameter. The description's mention of 'next N days (1–30, default 7)' exactly mirrors the schema description and adds no new semantic information, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get scheduled matches') and a clear time scope ('next N days'), which makes its purpose easy to grasp. It differentiates from flab_matches_today by the 'next N days' framing, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls 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 description gives useful context ('Public — no auth') and a parameter range, from which an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over flab_matches_today or other sibling tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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