Get World Cup 2026 API Metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata, attribution, endpoint links, and schema notes, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe or idempotent, nor does it mention any side effects or authentication requirements.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key action and contents. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It lists the types of information returned. However, it could be improved by specifying the format (e.g., JSON) or noting that it pertains to the free public API.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, as there are none.

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 clearly states it returns metadata, attribution, endpoint links, and schema notes. It identifies the tool as a metadata retrieval for the World Cup 2026 API, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve datasets, matches, or next matches.

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 description implies that this tool should be used to obtain metadata before making other API calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or context is given.

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