Get tennis match data

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the cost model ("Refused reads and summary rows are free. Pay per event on Apify"). That is context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema and matters for planning a run. It stops short of explaining how refused reads arise or what a summary row contains.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the required input and the return payload, then modes, then filters, then billing. The clipped imperative "Give a date or date range" reads slightly telegraphic, but nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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?

For a 13-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: required date input, returned fields, mode switch, filter dimensions, and pricing behavior. Remaining details (row caps, 366-day limit, top_n, whole_tournament) are fully covered by the schema, so the omission is not costly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters with enums and defaults. The description's "Filter by player, tournament, draw, or status" merely restates four parameter names and adds no syntax or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns ATP and WTA match data with named fields (players, seeds, round, status, set scores), and it distinguishes the two modes (matches vs. rankings). No sibling tools exist, so there is nothing to differentiate against, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

"Give a date or date range" implies the required input for matches mode, and "set mode to rankings" implies the alternative path, but neither is framed as an explicit when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when not to call it or what happens if date inputs are omitted, even though the schema notes date_from is "Needed in matches mode."

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