get_team_schedule

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

The description discloses return details including scheduled, in-progress, and completed matches with opponent, date, score, and status. Since annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, this adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata. However, it does not mention pagination or potential errors, which is acceptable for a simple 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?

The description is brief and well-organized: purpose, return summary, and parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), and the description covers its purpose, return content, and parameter format. The questionable example team ID is a minor completeness gap, but overall it is adequate for agent invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining team_id as an ESPN numeric ID with an example. The example '18418' is attributed to Atlanta United FC, which is inconsistent with the Women's Super League context, slightly undermining clarity. Still, it clearly communicates the expected format.

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 a single Women's Super League team in the current season,' which specifies a distinct action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scoreboard (all teams) and get_match_details (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 implies usage for retrieving a team's schedule but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks any mention of sibling tools or cases where another tool would be more appropriate, so it provides only indirect guidance.

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