get_team_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying return statuses (scheduled, in-progress, completed) and fields (opponent, date, score, status), which are not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a single sentence stating the primary purpose, a second sentence summarizing return contents, and an Args block for the parameter. No fluff or redundant information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple one-parameter read-only tool. It covers purpose, return fields, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps like defining 'current season' boundaries or potential errors are not critical given the available structured data.

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 provides only a 'team_id' string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining it is an 'ESPN numeric team ID' and providing an example ('18418' for Atlanta United FC). This gives clear parameter semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 USL Super League team in the current season.' It specifies the resource (matches for a team) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scoreboard or get_match_details by focusing on the full season schedule. It also enumerates return components, reinforcing purpose clarity.

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 usage for retrieving a team's complete schedule but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_match_details for single matches or get_scoreboard for current games. There are no exclusions or 'use X instead' statements, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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