Upcoming matches

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real output conventions: times in UTC, 'TBA' when only the day is known, exclusion of TBD pairings, and the attribution requirement. These are useful behaviors beyond structured fields, though return shape beyond date/time is not detailed.

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-loaded with the core scope and output order, then layered with filter behavior and caveats in a single dense paragraph. Every sentence carries information, though the tier/qualifier clause is slightly compressed and requires a second read.

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 6-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers ordering, time format, filter defaults, score-handling, and TBD exclusion, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly. Remaining details (list size) live in the schema's limit parameter.

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 already documents team, tournament, max_tier, and include_minor_types fully, including the tier semantics and the 'only used without team/tournament' coupling. The description's parameter content largely restates that; it elaborates the default tier behavior but adds little the schema does not already provide.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Scheduled matches from now on, soonest first') and immediately separates itself from the results siblings by stating 'These matches have no result yet: never present them with a score.' An agent can tell it apart from get_results without opening either schema.

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 clear context for when to apply filters ('Filter by team and/or exact tournament') and what the default behavior is without them ('only top-tier matches'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. use get_results for finished games) or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not fully routing-aware.

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