Find a game by teams

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, partial name support, and that it only searches today's slate. It also states the return format ({ eventId }) and error handling. However, it does not mention whether multiple matches are possible or how they are handled.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence provides useful context without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format ({ eventId } or error). It covers matching flexibility, error conditions, and limitations (today's slate only). This is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining matching behavior (partial names, case-insensitive), but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so 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 resolves a matchup description to an event ID for use with get_game_props. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning the downstream use case and the type of input (team names vs event IDs).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when you know the teams but not the event id,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains what happens if no match is found (not on today's board or out of season), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools like list_games for other lookup strategies.

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