Team matches

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.