Upcoming matches

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the matches are upcoming ('scheduled to start soon'), but does not disclose additional traits such as default time window, ordering, or dynamic nature beyond what openWorldHint already implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It fits the tool's simplicity and is appropriately concise.

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?

With strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and doesn't differentiate from sibling scheduling tools, leaving an agent to infer when 'upcoming' applies as opposed to 'fixtures' or 'live' matches.

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 has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional parameter meaning; it only vaguely references 'players and tournament' which maps to the player and tour parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists tennis matches with a time scope ('scheduled to start soon') and includes players and tournament. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_live_matches or get_fixtures, so it gets a 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_live_matches, get_fixtures, and get_recent_results suggest overlapping functionality, but the description gives no usage context or exclusions.

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