Get Historical Matchups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting the tool checks for a scheduled 2026 match. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, required permissions, or potential data freshness issues. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and outputs, then provides usage examples, and finally mentions a specific feature. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (meetings, stats, narrative). Parameter usage is well-covered. However, it lacks guidance on interpreting aggregate stats or narrative summary format. Given the tool's moderate complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters. The description adds value by clarifying accepted formats (team ID or FIFA code, with examples like 'bra', 'ARG', 'england') and noting case-insensitivity, which aids correct parameter construction.

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 retrieves head-to-head World Cup history between two teams, specifying return elements (tournament meetings, aggregate stats, narrative summary). It also mentions a special feature of checking for a scheduled 2026 match. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_teams or get_team_profile by focusing on historical matchups.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_teams). It implies usage for historical head-to-head data but lacks when-not or exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named or contrasted.

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