get_all_results

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'get all results' and an optional filter, with no disclosure of behavioral traits like sorting, pagination, error handling, or idempotency. This is minimal.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word is necessary; no wasted text.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it could mention return value structure or ordering, but it's mostly complete for a get-all 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing examples of valid round_name values like 'Quarter-final' or 'Group A'. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Get all World Cup 2026 results' with an optional filter, which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_match_result (specific match) and get_standings (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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over get_match_result, get_standings, or get_todays_matches.

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