Football matches on Terrace

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the description's read-only framing, and the description adds that results include match ids and cover both upcoming and live fixtures. It says nothing about ordering, freshness, pagination, or result size, which matters for a list tool with no output schema.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope. Nothing redundant and nothing wasted.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description covers the essentials and even names the key returned field (match ids). It falls short of 5 only because return shape details like volume or ordering are absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies the tool returns an unfiltered set of matches.

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 names a specific resource (football matches), scopes it (upcoming and live), and states what comes back (match ids). The verb is implicit ('list'), but an agent can still distinguish this from siblings like terrace_my_bets or terrace_open_takes.

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 phrase 'you can bet on' implies the tool is a discovery step before terrace_back, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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