Recent results

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

The annotations cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: the plan prerequisite and that results include final scores and winners. No contradiction with annotations, and the extra context earns a 4.

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 short, purposeful sentences, immediately stating the core function and then adding filter and plan information. No wasted or redundant content.

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?

Combined with the complete schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the tool's core purpose, filter options, and access requirement. The only slight gap is the vague term 'recently' without a default time window clarification, but the from/to parameters fill that gap.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description's mention of filterable options (tour, player, nationality, play date) adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics fully.

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 as recently completed tennis matches with final scores and winners, which distinguishes it from live, upcoming, or archive match tools. However, the action verb is implicit rather than explicit ('List' or 'Get'), so it stops short of 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?

The description states the tool is filterable and mentions the plan requirement, giving a sense of when it applies. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as get_archive_matches or get_live_matches, nor does it state when not to use it.

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