Get poule matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'List all matches' and 'full calendar and results' implies a read-only operation and indicates the returned content broadly. However, it does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, match statuses, or what happens when a poule has no matches.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, gives a concrete example, and then states the GUID source. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, scope, example, and parameter provenance. It could be more complete by mentioning the shape of the returned matches or any default behavior, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 input schema already documents poule_guid with an example, so the baseline is 3 for high schema coverage. The description adds value by explaining where the GUID comes from (get_club) and clarifying that poule_guid identifies a competition/series. This provenance is useful beyond the schema text.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all matches of a poule'), and clarifies the domain term by calling it a competition/series with a concrete example ('Top Division Men 1'). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club_matches or get_team_matches without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need all matches or the full calendar/results of a poule. It also provides a direct prerequisite by stating that poule GUIDs come from get_club, which helps an agent build the correct call sequence. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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