Head to head

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds non-obvious implementation detail: Varzesh3 has no head-to-head page, so it scans the last depth*24 matches of team_id across all competitions for the opponent. That reveals a bounded-scan limitation an agent would otherwise miss. It omits what happens when the opponent never appears in the scanned window.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds only the details an agent needs (scan mechanics, id discovery, id handoff to v3_match). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema, the description correctly indicates what comes back: a list of meetings, each with an id usable by v3_match, plus a won/drawn/lost summary for team_id. Only the empty-result case is left unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: depth is a scan budget you raise to look further back, and the scan covers all competitions for team_id. That clarifies the cost/recall tradeoff of depth beyond the schema's 'pages of 24 past matches' phrasing.

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: 'Get the past meetings of two football teams with a won/drawn/lost summary for team_id.' This clearly separates it from v3_team_matches (one team) and v3_match (single fixture).

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?

Gives concrete query examples ('Perspolis vs Esteghlal history', 'last derby results') and explicit routing: 'Find ids with v3_search. Each meeting has an id for v3_match.' It also explains when to raise depth, which is actionable guidance rather than vague context.

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