Results archive (1968–2022)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the record shape (winner/loser with final score, seeds, ranks at match time), the historical cutoff, and the plan requirement. It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first concisely states purpose and scope, the second gives usage context and boundary. No redundant wording; every clause carries meaningful 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?

The description fully covers what an agent needs: the tool's scope, the distinction from recent results, the output shape, and access requirements. Combined with rich schema (7 params, 100% covered) and output schema present, it is sufficiently complete for correct 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does mention general output shape but not specific parameter usage beyond what schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool searches the completed-match results archive with specific scope: ATP/WTA, main draws, qualifying, ITF/futures tiers, and date range 1968–2022. It clearly distinguishes from recent results by naming get_recent_results as the successor for post-2022 data.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for historical questions' and states the archive ends where get_recent_results begins, directly naming the alternative. Also mentions the required plan level, giving a clear prerequisite for invocation.

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