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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the exact return content categories (teams, poules, website, address, venues, board members) and notes that returned GUIDs can feed into other tools. It does not cover error/empty-result behavior, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 carry the essential information with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence adds valuable routing context for downstream tools.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the call returns, and it does so by enumerating teams, poules, website, address, venues, and board members. It also connects returned GUIDs to related tools. It could mention how to discover the club GUID (e.g., via list_clubs), but the provided context is otherwise sufficient.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents club_guid. The description adds an example value and notes that returned GUIDs are reusable downstream, but it does not materially expand the meaning of the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details'), a specific resource ('one club'), and an explicit identifier type ('by its GUID'), with an example format. It also names what the result contains, making it clearly distinct from list_clubs and other sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for use: when you need full club detail and associated team/poule GUIDs for downstream calls. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_clubs or get_club_members, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it states that both played and upcoming matches are returned and explains the result semantics ('uitslag' empty when unplayed, 'gespeeld = J' indicates played). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but these are minor for this read-only list operation.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second enumerates the returned match fields and their meanings. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input scope, the full set of matches returned, and the key output field semantics. Nothing essential for invoking the tool or interpreting its result is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single club_guid parameter, including a descriptive example. The description adds no new parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing the 'club' concept, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly bounded resource: all matches of every team of a club, across all competitions. This explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_team_matches, get_poule_matches, and get_match.

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 clearly establishes the intended use case: retrieving a club-wide view of all matches across teams and competitions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope statement provides enough context for an agent to select it over narrower match-listing tools.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It warns about list size ('Can be a large list'), suggests a mitigation (search filter), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (relGuid, name, first name, birth date, gender, category). It does not disclose pagination or any limits, but for a read-only listing tool this is reasonable.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, size/search advice, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description helpfully lists the return fields, and the schema covers all parameters. The main unanswered question is whether the return list is paginated or truncated when unsearchable, but the size warning mitigates that concern. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to call it and know what to expect.

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%, with both club_guid and search already explained in the schema. The description adds only a restatement that search filters by name, and does not clarify matching semantics beyond the schema's 'case-insensitive filter.' Therefore it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but adds little beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the registered members (players, coaches, officials) of a club.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club_matches and get_poule_standings, which target different resources. The explicit scope (players, coaches, officials) removes ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. It does imply the use case through its purpose, and it gives practical guidance: 'Can be a large list; use the search parameter to filter by name,' which tells an agent when to supply the optional parameter. This is more than no guidance, but it lacks the explicit alternative routing seen in stronger definitions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the returned data categories and the conditional include_history behavior. It does not cover not-found/error cases, but the read-only nature and effect of the optional flag are clear.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and key identifier, list what the response contains, and explain the optional flag with no filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose, identifier provenance, returned content, and optional behavior. The only notable gaps are no mention of error/not-found behavior and no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_match_lineup.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by giving an example GUID, stating that the GUID comes from the *matches tools, and clarifying include_history returns 'raw rescheduling history' rather than just the verbose field.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get full details of one match'), identifies the key identifier (match GUID with example), and lists what is included (teams, venue, officials, planning status), which distinguishes it from list/lineup siblings.

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 clear context: use this tool to fetch a single match by GUID, and the GUID comes from the *matches tools. It does not explicitly contrast with get_match_lineup or the list-style sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the availability constraint (requires digital match form) and the null-return behavior for matches without DWF data, which are the key non-obvious behaviors. It does not mention error behavior for invalid match_guid, but the covered behaviors are the most important for correct invocation.

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 deliver the core purpose, the exact data included, and the key edge case without any wasted words. The primary function is stated first, with the availability caveat following naturally.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, what it includes, and when it returns null. It is slightly light on the exact return shape (e.g., whether a list or object is expected), but the prose is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly in most cases.

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%, and the sole parameter match_guid is documented with an example. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the exact resource (digital scoresheet participants: players and coaches with jersey numbers) and the action (get), making it unambiguous. It also differentiates this from sibling match/team tools by focusing specifically on lineup participants rather than match metadata, standings, or team lists.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: the tool only works when a digital match form exists and explicitly signals that null is returned for matches without DWF data. It does not name alternative tools for such cases, but the null-return explanation gives an agent enough context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'List all matches' and 'full calendar and results' implies a read-only operation and indicates the returned content broadly. However, it does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, match statuses, or what happens when a poule has no matches.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, gives a concrete example, and then states the GUID source. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, scope, example, and parameter provenance. It could be more complete by mentioning the shape of the returned matches or any default behavior, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 already documents poule_guid with an example, so the baseline is 3 for high schema coverage. The description adds value by explaining where the GUID comes from (get_club) and clarifying that poule_guid identifies a competition/series. This provenance is useful beyond the schema text.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all matches of a poule'), and clarifies the domain term by calling it a competition/series with a concrete example ('Top Division Men 1'). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club_matches or get_team_matches without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need all matches or the full calendar/results of a poule. It also provides a direct prerequisite by stating that poule GUIDs come from get_club, which helps an agent build the correct call sequence. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it falls back to computed standings if the official ranking is not exposed. It also describes what data is returned, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It combines purpose, output details, and fallback behavior without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values and the fallback behavior. With one required parameter and a clear example in the schema, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, poule_guid, and the schema already describes it with a concrete example. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get the official standings') and resource ('of a poule'), and names the return content. It also distinguishes itself from sibling match-related tools by focusing on standings, not matches.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve standings for a poule, with an explicit fallback when official rankings are unavailable. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource and purpose are distinct enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent about the returned content (standings, spelers, tvlijst) and the space-sensitivity of the GUID. It does not discuss errors or response format, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 efficient sentences. The main action is front-loaded, the critical GUID caveat follows immediately, and the output content is summarized without padding.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description names the three main result sections and the input caveat. It could mention absence/error behavior, but the tool is simple and the core calling contract is complete.

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 already documents team_guid at 100% coverage, but the description adds practical semantics: example value, the fact that GUIDs contain spaces, and the instruction to pass them exactly as returned by get_club. This goes beyond the schema baseline.

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: 'Get details of one team by its team GUID.' It also enumerates what the details include (standings, roster, staff), which sets it apart from siblings such as get_club and get_poule_standings.

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?

Clear context: use the team GUID returned by get_club and pass it exactly, with the space caveat. It does not explicitly list exclusions like 'for matches use get_team_matches', but the content list implies when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the list spans all competitions, includes both played and upcoming matches, and each entry exposes date, time, venue, opponent, poule, and result. It does not mention pagination or null-result behavior for unplayed matches, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by scope and return fields, every clause earning its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (date, time, venue, opponent, poule, result). It is complete enough for a simple list call, though it could specify that 'result' is absent or null for upcoming 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the team_guid parameter already has an example and a keep-the-spaces note. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond 'one team', so the schema carries the weight; the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: all matches of one team across all competitions, including played and upcoming. This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_poule_matches and get_club_matches without needing to open their schemas.

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 'of one team' implies the intended use case (team-level match lookup) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as 'use get_club_matches for all club matches' or 'use get_poule_matches for a poule'. The context is clear enough, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields and the optional search behavior, and its read-only nature is inferable from 'List'. However, it omits potential behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or result-size limits, which would matter for a list-all tool.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover filtering, return fields, and downstream usage. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place, including the cross-reference to get_club* tools.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, how to filter, the exact fields returned, and how to consume the guid. It would benefit from a note on pagination or list size, but given the 1-param schema and read-only nature, it is nearly complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as a 'Case-insensitive filter on club name, city, region or stam number'. The description's mention of the search string merely restates the schema's meaning and adds no new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opening sentence 'List all Basketball Vlaanderen clubs (organizations)' names a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'all' distinguishes it from singular get_club* siblings that fetch individual records. The return-field list further clarifies the payload, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool produces.

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 final sentence 'Use the guid with the get_club* tools' explicitly guides the agent to the follow-up tools, implying this listing tool is the entry point for club lookups. It does not formally state when not to use it, but the sibling names and 'get_club*' reference make the workflow clear.

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