Match results

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It discloses ordering (oldest first) and the cap on most recent matches, but introduces potential confusion: 'oldest first' vs 'most recent' cap could lead to ambiguous interpretation. No mention of error handling, default values, or response type.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core function. Every word 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should compensate by fully describing the return structure. It lists key output fields (FT/HT scores, first-goal minute) but omits other likely information (team names, dates, league/season). Adequate for a list endpoint but leaves gaps about the exact object shape.

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%—all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only loosely contextualizes 'last' as a cap, which is redundant with the schema's 'most recent' phrasing.

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?

Clearly states it returns finished matches of a league season with FT/HT scores and first-goal minute, in oldest-first order. This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like get_fixtures (future matches) and get_match (single match).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. Implied use is for finished matches only, and optional filters are described, but the description does not contrast with e.g. get_fixtures for pending matches or get_match for a specific match.

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