List matches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns scores, kickoff times, status, and teams, and that it supports filters. However, it does not mention pagination, default limits, ordering, or any response-level behavior beyond the basic listing semantics.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and output contents, the second lists the filter dimensions. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 straightforward listing tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what is returned and what can be filtered. It could add ordering/pagination behavior, but the schema documents the limit parameter, so the overall context is mostly complete.

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 schema already covers 86% of parameters with clear descriptions and examples. The description's mention of filtering by competition, team, status, date, or season maps to existing schema fields but adds no new semantic detail beyond that mapping.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('matches') and enumerates the returned data (scores, kickoff times, status, teams) plus filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like openfoot_standings, openfoot_match_lineups, and openfoot_competitions.

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 rather than explicit: the agent can infer this tool is for listing fixtures/results and filtering them. However, it does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as openfoot_search or a match-detail sibling, nor does it state any exclusions.

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