get_team_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return content (full slate with date, opponent, venue, score), which is consistent with read-only behavior. No contradictions or missing behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: two lines for purpose followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's simplicity (2 integer params, no enums, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the parameters. The output schema obviates the need for return value details.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section adds substantial meaning: it provides a concrete example for event_id (e.g., 3933) and tells the agent that team_id can be obtained from get_teams or the standings table. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get all matches for one team within an event' and lists specific return fields (date, opponent, venue, score). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_schedule (likely broader) 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?

The description provides clear context with arg examples and a reference to get_teams for obtaining team_id. While no explicit when-not-to-use directives are given, the purpose is sufficiently clear to guide selection among siblings.

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