football_get_groups

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the returned data structure and the meta.source adapter, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as data freshness, whether the draw is final, or how the adapter behaves if data is unavailable.

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 concise and logically structured with a brief summary followed by a clear Returns breakdown. It is slightly verbose in re-specifying output schema details that the output schema already provides, but every line is informative and no filler exists.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, the exact group structure, the format rule, and team metadata. There is no missing essential context for correct invocation.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description confirms the tool takes no input.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('FIFA World Cup 2026 group draw and advancement format'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like football_simulate_group or football_get_standings by naming the actual draw and format as the subject.

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 intended use is implied by the tool's scope: an agent needing the actual 2026 World Cup group composition and format should call this. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like football_simulate_group for hypothetical scenarios, leaving some routing judgment to the agent.

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