get_team_h2h

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return values (matches, wins, no-results, recent meetings, atomic lead claim, canonical URL) but does not mention side effects or access requirements, which are expectedly minimal for a query 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then details on parameters and output. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input format and return summary. Could add more on handling invalid slugs or multiple seasons, but sufficient for typical usage.

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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates by listing example slugs and stating order doesn't matter. Clarifies that parameters accept team identifiers like 'mi', 'csk', etc., adding meaning beyond the bare type 'string'.

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 team-vs-team head-to-head record across IPL 2026, with specific metrics and output. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_players and player_h2h by focusing on team comparison.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: pass slugs in any order with a list of examples. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context suggests it's for team head-to-head queries, differentiated from player comparisons.

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