get_team_h2h

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only finished meetings and includes scores and maps, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits information about authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or any side effects. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified; the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details. The structure is acceptable but does not front-load the most actionable information or organize it effectively.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no operational details. An agent cannot determine how to format team names, what sports are supported, or what the 'limit' parameter controls. This is severely incomplete for successful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The roles of 'sport', 'team1', 'team2', and 'limit' are entirely undefined. An agent cannot know valid values, formats, or constraints from either the schema or the description, making this a critical gap.

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 resource: finished team-vs-team meetings with scores and maps from the history vault. It distinguishes from live or upcoming matches and implies retrieval of historical head-to-head data. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the tool name and context make the action obvious.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_team_matches, get_matches, or search_matches. The description does not mention prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this head-to-head specific tool is appropriate.

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