Competition matches

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.