get_referees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the metrics in each dossier (cards per match, fouls, penalty rate, strictness index, club bias), letting the agent judge payload fit before calling. It does not say whether one or all referees come back, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause contributes scope or payload content. The parenthetical metric list is dense but justified given there is no output schema, though it does make the sentence long to scan.

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 correctly takes on the job of describing returned fields, and it does so thoroughly while pinning the season and referee cohort. The only missing piece is the default behavior when 'referee' is not supplied.

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% and the single optional 'referee' slug param is fully documented with examples in the schema, so the baseline is a 3. The description does not explain what happens when the parameter is omitted (presumably all Select Group 1 referees), which is the one semantic detail the schema leaves open.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Retrieve) and a precisely scoped resource (2026/27 PGMOL Select Group 1 Premier League referee statistical dossiers), so an agent knows exactly what domain of data is returned. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but the subject matter is distinct enough from fixtures, lineups, and tables that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied by the subject matter — an agent looking for referee discipline tendencies would pick this — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when a referee argument is warranted, and no alternatives referenced. Nothing misleading, just unsaid.

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