search_matches

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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint already declared, the description adds genuine context by enumerating the returned fields (game_id, teams, tournament, start time, Live score) and signalling what is absent (odds, deferred to get_match). It does not cover result ordering, truncation, or the effect of the default limit.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The search scope is front-loaded and the return-field summary plus the get_match hand-off come second, which is the right order.

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, describing the returned fields is essential and it does so. The search surface is left partly implicit but is recoverable from line_type in the schema; only pagination/limit behaviour and result ordering remain unaddressed for a 3-param 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so text, limit, and line_type are already documented with examples, bounds, and an enum. The description only restates that matching is by team/participant name, adding no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (find), resource (matches) and the search key (team or participant name), then names the sibling it is not (get_match) and why. An agent can distinguish it from list_live_matches, top_matches, and get_match without opening any 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?

It gives a clear use context (lookup by team/participant name) and explicitly routes odds lookups to get_match, which is the key alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., browsing by tournament or country, which other siblings cover), so no full when/when-not pairing.

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