get_head_to_head

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'aggregate the results' but does not explain the aggregation method (e.g., win/loss/draw counts) or other behaviors like data freshness, read-only status, or rate limits. The statement 'every World Cup meeting' clarifies scope but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundant information; every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on the aggregation nature (e.g., summary statistics) and does not mention the optional parameters or their defaults. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but could be more informative.

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 40% (only team_a and team_b have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as clarifying from_year, to_year, or gender usage. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions for other 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'every World Cup meeting between two countries', with 'aggregate the results' specifying the outcome. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_team_history (single team) and list_tournaments (list tournaments).

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 implies usage when a user wants head-to-head history, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., get_team_history for a single team's matches). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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