Matches in a time range

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it discloses the finished-vs-'not played yet' return semantics, top-tier filtering and how include_minor_types changes it, the whole-day handling for unannounced times, the 50-match cap with a cutoff notice, and the citation requirement. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose (time range, wikis, count) before moving to filtering and edge-case rules, so the most important information comes first. The later sentences are dense and somewhat run-on, but each carries distinct, non-redundant rules.

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 compensates by describing return shape (score/winner for finished, 'not played yet' otherwise, per-stage summaries, 50-match cutoff notice). Combined with its handling of the 31-day and unannounced-time constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interaction meaning the schema lacks: it explains that max_tier and include_minor_types only take effect 'without a team' and how the tier filter interacts with minor event types. It stops short of covering wikis/team syntax beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('all matches between two UTC timestamps ... for one or more wikis') and adds scope constraints (max 31 days, chronological order). It clearly reads as a time-range list tool, but it never names its closest siblings (get_upcoming, get_results) to sharply delimit itself from them.

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?

Gives concrete usage framing ('what's on this weekend', 'what happened yesterday') and states the default filtering behavior when no team is supplied, which helps an agent decide when this tool fits. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance against get_upcoming or get_results.

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