get_match_facts_by_date_range

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. It does not mention pagination, performance implications, required authorization, or what exactly 'match facts' entails. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward parameterized tool.

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 lack of output schema and the complexity of 8 parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return structure, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'match facts'. An agent would need to infer much from the schema alone.

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 input schema already describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as the format of 'include' or 'select' or how filters work. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets match facts filtered by date range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_match_facts_by_fixture_id and get_match_facts_by_league_id by the time-based scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the many sibling tools. For example, an agent might benefit from knowing this is for querying facts across multiple matches over a period, as opposed to get_match_facts_by_fixture_id for a single match.

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