get_team_matches

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context, and it does disclose that only finished games from a historical archive are returned. It does not cover pagination, ordering, date-filtering behavior, or the meaning of 'Builder+', which are meaningful gaps for a read tool.

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-loads the core idea in the first clause. Every phrase except the cryptic 'Builder+' earns its place; the line is parsimonious rather than padded.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly. It omits parameter formats, date-range semantics, pagination, and return-value expectations.

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 needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It only conveys that the resource is a team schedule, lightly covering 'team' and possibly 'sport', but says nothing about limit, offset, start_date, or end_date.

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 phrase 'Full finished team schedule from the history vault' identifies a specific resource: completed match history for a team, and the tool name adds the 'get' verb. It is not a tautology and gives enough scope to distinguish from live-game or generic match tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: 'finished' and 'history vault' suggest this is for completed historical matches rather than live or upcoming fixtures. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives such as search_matches or get_live_games.

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