Team matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that — results span all competitions and each returned match carries an id for v3_match — but says nothing about result shape, ordering guarantees beyond the schema, or empty-result handling.

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: the capability is front-loaded, then usage examples and the downstream-link note follow. 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?

For a 4-param, fully documented, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the id handoff to v3_match adequately. It could say slightly more about the return shape (e.g., score, date, competition fields), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the enum for `which` already spells out the results/upcoming ordering, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds example team names in prose, which duplicates what `team_id`'s schema description already provides.

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 — a team's latest results or upcoming matches — and scopes it to 'across all competitions', which separates it from league-scoped siblings like v3_league_matches and from v3_scores. It also signals the handoff to v3_match via match ids, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 two quoted example queries ("Persepolis last 5 results", "when does Esteghlal play next") make the when-to-use condition concrete and map directly onto the `which` modes. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives for league-wide fixture lookups.

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