What to Know Now

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it automatically detects tournament phase, which is behavioral context. It does not detail output format, but for a briefing tool this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose and then providing optional usage details. 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality, optional overrides, and automatic detection. Could hint at return format, but not essential.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already documented. The description adds value by explaining the date parameter is for simulating different days and timezone for local times, reinforcing and extending the schema descriptions.

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 provides a zero-query temporal briefing for FIFA World Cup 2026, automatically detecting the current phase. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_matches or get_standings by being a concise summary, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'No parameters needed — just brief me' and explains optional parameters for date simulation and timezone. It implies usage for quick overviews but does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context is clear.

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