get_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get statistical data' but does not specify what data fields are returned, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset params), or performance considerations. It does not state if it reads only (safe) or has side effects, which is a gap.

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 that captures the noun (statistical data for multiple matches) and key filtering options. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for filters) but remains efficient.

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 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on output format (no output schema), typical use cases, and caveats about filtering combinations. For a tool with 9 optional params and multiple siblings, more contextual guidance would help.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter has a clear description. The tool description provides a high-level summary but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistical data for multiple matches', with specific filtering options like team, year, event, week, and elimination status. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_match (single match) and get_team_matches (matches for a team). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 retrieving filtered match data, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use get_matches vs get_team_matches or get_match. No filtering prerequisites or caveats are mentioned.

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