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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that matches include a matchId for follow-up calls and that the result set spans schedule plus results, but says nothing about pagination via limit, ordering, or what fields a match actually 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the returned-entity hint is front-loaded before the follow-up workflow note. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should sketch the shape of a match (teams, date, score) and pagination behavior. It covers the identity of results and the follow-up path but leaves the return payload and limit semantics undocumented.

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 67% and the filter enum is already documented in the schema. The description adds no information about competition slug format or limit behavior, so it does not compensate for the uncovered fields — 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 the resource ('Schedule and results for a competition'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from get_match_protocol or get_standings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_team_matches or get_matches_by_date, but the competition scoping makes the intent clear.

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 second sentence gives a real workflow cue: results carry a matchId to feed into get_match_protocol. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_team_matches, get_matches_by_date, or list_competitions, nor any stated prerequisites.

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 behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it. It conveys that all matches are returned (so potentially a large result set) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-day behavior, or whether federation codes must come from list_federations.

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?

It is a single short fragment with zero waste and the scope is front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification. There is no padding, yet also nothing that earns extra space.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description should explain what a match record contains and how required federation/districtId are obtained. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 67%, with districtId undocumented in the schema. The description only echoes the parameter concepts ('district', 'day') without adding format, valid values, or the relationship to federation/districtId; the 'e.g. SHF' hint comes from the schema, not the description.

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 ('All matches') with two scoping constraints (district, given day), which implicitly separates it from get_competition_matches, get_team_matches, and get_match_protocol by scope. It never names those siblings, so differentiation must be inferred from the scope words alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_competition_matches or get_team_matches instead, and no prerequisites noted. The district+date framing only weakly implies the use case.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup or what happens with an invalid/unresolvable match id. It does earn credit for disclosing the shape of the payload (per-player lineups, full event log including goals, 7m, suspensions, timeouts), which tells the agent to expect a large detailed response rather than a summary.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource name and its Norwegian synonym, then lists contents. Every clause contributes information; the only cost is that the enumeration is long and slightly repetitive about suspensions.

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 one fully documented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the main risk is unknown return shape — the description addresses that directly by enumerating the payload components. Missing only the read-only assurance and any note on response size or failure behavior.

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 one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema description already explains that matchId accepts either a numeric id or a profixio.com/app/lx/match/<id> URL. The tool description adds nothing about matchId, which is acceptable given the schema fully covers it — baseline 3.

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 (match protocol/matchprotokoll) and enumerates exactly what it contains — teams, result, venue, lineups, officials, event log — which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented siblings like get_competition_matches or get_matches_by_date. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after locating a match id via get_competition_matches or get_matches_by_date, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer the retrieval workflow from the sibling names alone.

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 does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a single competition may yield several group tables — but says nothing about ordering, tie-breakers, or what a table 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and following with the multi-group caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than economy.

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 read tool with full schema coverage this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say more about the shape of a standings table (positions, points, columns) instead of only noting that multiple groups exist.

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 the single 'competition' parameter already documents both accepted forms (slug or URL) with an example. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (league table/standings) scoped to a competition, which is clearly distinct from sibling tools that list competitions, teams, or matches. The retrieval verb is only implied by the name, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want a table for a given competition. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a related tool such as get_competition_matches for results data.

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, and it says nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, how many matches are returned, ordering, or what fields a match record contains (scores, dates, status). Read-only behavior is only inferable from the verb "get".

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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the prerequisite tip. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain what a match object looks like or at least whether results include scores/status/dates. As written, an agent knows the scope but not the payload or limits, which is thin for a three-parameter query tool.

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 67%: competition and filter are already documented in the schema (filter's enum meanings are spelled out there). The description adds real value on teamId by pointing to search_teams as the source, but adds nothing about the filter values or whether 'all' is the default.

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?

"All matches for one team in a competition" states a specific verb (get/list) and resource with its scoping dimension (single team, single competition). It implicitly differentiates from get_competition_matches (all teams in a competition), though it never names that contrast explicitly.

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 second sentence gives a prerequisite workflow — find the teamId via search_teams or get_competition_matches — which is genuinely useful for a required numeric ID. However, it never says when to choose this tool over get_competition_matches for the same competition, so the primary sibling routing decision is left to inference.

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 safety burden; 'List' plus 'Returns slugs' conveys a read-only enumeration and hints at the return shape, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, season selection behavior (no season parameter exists), or what happens if districtId and search interact.

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, zero filler, with the scope (current season) and the key downstream fact (slugs used by other tools) front-loaded.

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 3-parameter read-only list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope, targeting (federation vs. district), and what the response yields. Minor gap: it doesn't say how results are ordered or how search interacts with district scoping.

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 federation, districtId, and search with examples and patterns. The description's 'federation-wide or in one district' framing mirrors the districtId schema text ('omit for federation-level competitions') rather than adding new semantics, so 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 (List) and resource (competitions), disambiguates the term with '(series/leagues)', and scopes it to the current season. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_districts or list_federations, but the federation-wide vs. district framing makes its place in the hierarchy inferable.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call it for the current season, either federation-wide or for one district, and notes the returned slugs feed the other tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite chain (federation code / district id must be obtained elsewhere) is stated in the description, though the schema points to list_districts.

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 burden. 'List' implies a safe read operation, and the example shows the shape of returned values, but it says nothing about ordering, empty results, error handling on invalid federation codes, or permissions.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource and followed by a clarifying example. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the hierarchy and gives an example of return values. It falls slightly short on edge-case behavior (invalid code, empty district list) which matters when no output schema exists.

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% (the federation param already documents 'Federation code, e.g. SHF'), so the baseline is 3. The description's example reinforces the input format and additionally shows what district values look like, but adds no new constraints or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('List the districts/regions of a federation') and even clarifies that districts and regions are the same concept. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_federations or list_competitions, though the parent-child relationship is implied by the example.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example 'SHF → HF Öst' shows the tool is called with a federation code to obtain its districts. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_federations or list_competitions, and no guidance on what happens for an unknown code.

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. "List" signals a read-only, no-argument operation, but nothing is said about the shape of results (likely id/name pairs) or whether a federation id is required to call list_districts/list_competitions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical examples earn their space by disambiguating the domain-specific term "federation." No filler.

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 trivial zero-parameter list tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what comes back (identifiers vs. names) or how that output feeds the sibling browse tools, which is the main thing an agent needs to proceed.

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 of 4 applies. The description's examples describe the resource domain rather than arguments.

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 ("List the sports federations on Profixio") and grounds the abstract term "federation" with concrete examples (SHF, SVBF). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_districts and list_competitions, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

"Start here to browse" implies this is the entry point of a hierarchy and the downstream siblings (districts, competitions) follow, but the when/when-not conditions and the chaining path are only implied, not 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, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the return shape (team ids plus competing competition) and the ordering caveat ('newest seasons first is not guaranteed'). However, it says nothing about matching semantics (partial vs exact name), result caps, pagination, or auth requirements that matter for a global search.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the scope and result contents front-loaded before the ordering caveat.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and return contents, which is nearly enough; only result limits and match semantics are left unstated.

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 the single 'query' parameter already has an example ('Tyresö'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that matching is by team/club name across the whole corpus, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Search ... for teams by name') and the scope ('all of Profixio'), which an agent can distinguish from the list_*/get_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the wording suggests this is the lookup path when you need a team id, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no statement about what to do when a team is already known via another sibling.

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