Search teams and competitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and canonical-ID output, which covers the essential behavior. It does not mention result limits, multiple-match handling, or empty results, but those are minor for a search tool.

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 word contributes meaning: search, teams/competitions, fuzzy name, canonical IDs.

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 two-parameter search tool with thorough schema coverage, the description adequately communicates the task and return concept. It lacks detail on pagination or result limits, but this is a minor gap with no output schema required.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have useful descriptions with examples. The description adds context around fuzzy matching and canonical IDs, but the schema already handles parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search), specific resources (teams or competitions), and the outcome (canonical OpenFootAPI IDs). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that consume IDs for matches, standings, or odds.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to resolve a fuzzy team/competition name into a canonical ID. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended use case is obvious.

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