Get one team's results

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description explains critical null-score behavior: half-entered games yield null scores and 'a missing score is unknown, never zero.' This adds valuable behavioral context about data storage upstream and null handling.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then adds necessary behavioral nuance, and ends with a directive to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only nature, 3 parameters, and thorough schema annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: return fields, null semantics, and alternative usage. No output schema exists, but the description includes key output field names, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter semantics, staying at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns completed games with results for a single team, using specific output field names. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mpaz_get_team_schedule, which covers upcoming fixtures.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer mpaz_get_team_schedule for upcoming fixtures' clearly tells when not to use this tool. The description also references mpaz_list_teams for resolving team IDs for past seasons, giving practical usage context.

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