get_matches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: finished matches come from 'vault history' rather than a live source. However, it does not explain default behavior (e.g., default status is 'upcoming', date filtering semantics, pagination behavior via limit/offset), which leaves notable gaps.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. However, the phrasing is cryptic and compressed ('Builder+', 'finished uses vault history') rather than clearly structured, and it omits important operational details that would make the brevity effective.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It hints at the output shape and one data-source caveat, but an agent still lacks clarity on how to choose values, how dates filter results, what pagination defaults apply, and what the returned list looks like beyond the ID fields.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It only covers 'status' by listing valid values (upcoming | live | finished), which is helpful, but it gives no meaning for sport, start_date, end_date, limit, or offset. This is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and no schema-level 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 identifies the resource ('Match list') and the key output fields ('kr_match_id, kr_tm_* team ids'), so an agent can infer this tool returns match IDs and team mappings. It also lists the supported statuses. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like search_matches or get_match, and the phrase 'Builder+' is opaque.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as search_matches, get_live_games, or get_team_matches. The mention of statuses and 'finished uses vault history' indirectly hints at intended use cases, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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