search_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the query criteria but does not state whether authentication or special permissions beyond 'Builder+' are required, what the response contains, whether results are limited, or whether the operation is read-only. 'Builder+' is an ambiguous label rather than a clear access disclosure.

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 focused sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and criteria. The cryptic 'Builder+' slightly hurts clarity but does not add unnecessary length.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, so the description needs to do substantial work. It fails to document the required sport parameter, explain 'Builder+', define the return shape, or mention ordering or limits. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call or interpret the response from this description alone.

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 the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It adds some meaning for date ('YYYY-MM-DD') and for team1/team2 via 'team name(s)', but it completely omits the required 'sport' parameter and gives no value guidance for any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('matches'), and states the primary search dimensions (team name(s), optional date). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_matches or get_team_matches, and the term 'Builder+' is unexplained, so it is not a 5.

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 to use search_matches versus sibling tools such as get_matches, get_team_matches, or search_players. 'Builder+' hints at an access restriction but is not explained, and no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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