get_club_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation implied by the name. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, response shape, or whether this returns a list of matches versus match details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for what little information it conveys, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing useful details.

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, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, a one-line description is not enough for an agent to confidently call the tool correctly. It lacks parameter format guidance and any indication of the result type, though the tool is simple enough that this is only a moderate gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the url_id parameter. Although the name suggests a URL identifier, the description does not clarify that it should be the club's URL ID, its format, or how to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team matches for a club'), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like get_club_profile and get_club_members, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_team_match.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_team_match or get_player_matches. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical lookup workflow, or why a caller would choose this over a sibling.

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