Matches on a date

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.