Compare two teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses last 5 results and W/D/L tally for comparison, but does not mention edge cases (e.g., teams with fewer than 5 matches), data source, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, directly stating the tool's purpose and metrics. No filler or redundant information; extremely concise and 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?

Given no output schema, the description gives a sense of the output (form metrics), but is vague about the exact structure. It does not mention error handling or conditions like team not found. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more comprehensive.

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 each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that the comparison is based on recent form and W/D/L tally, which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool compares two clubs by recent form (last 5 results) and W/D/L tally. It specifies the verb (compare), resources (two teams), and the specific metrics, differentiating it from siblings like find_team or get_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?

The description implies usage for comparing recent form between two clubs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_standings or get_team_matches. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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