list_fotmob_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the core functionality without mentioning behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or response structure. The tool name suggests safety, but this is not confirmed.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required fields, and presence of an output schema), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It omits details like pagination or filtering specifics, but these are not critical for a basic list endpoint.

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 0%, but the description explains the 'query' parameter as an optional keyword filter. This adds meaning beyond the minimal schema. However, it does not detail filter behavior or valid patterns, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 the tool lists verified FotMob routes with an optional keyword filter. It effectively implies a listing operation, distinguishing from the sibling 'fetch_fotmob_route' which likely retrieves a specific route. However, explicit differentiation is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_fotmob_route'. The description only implies usage for listing, but lacks explicit context about when not to use it or what alternatives exist.

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