get_team_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that returned matches include scheduled, in-progress, and completed ones, with opponent, date, score, and status. However, it does not mention potential pagination limits or error behavior.

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 two sentences plus an Args block. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It states the scope (current season), defines the parameter, and lists the return fields. It could mention how to handle other seasons or invalid team IDs, but these are minor gaps for a low-complexity 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?

The schema only defines team_id as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining 'ESPN numeric team ID' and providing a concrete example ('18418' for Atlanta United FC). This is exactly the kind of parameter clarity agents need.

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's function: 'Get all matches for a single Premier League team in the current season.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_scoreboard (league-wide) and get_match_details (specific 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a team's schedule) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other types of match data, but the description alone offers no direct comparison.

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