get_team_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the tool fetches statistics (a read operation) and lists filtering options, but does not disclose behaviors such as rate limits, pagination handling, data freshness, or whether missing filters return all data. Returns a default of 1000 results, which is mentioned in the schema but not in the description.

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, front-loading the primary action and listing filters. Every part adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately concise.

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 10 optional parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description summarizes the filtering capabilities well. However, it could mention that all parameters are optional and the return type (team-match statistics list) to fully cover the tool's context.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter well. The description adds value by summarizing that filtering can be done by team, year, event, week, match, and elimination status, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is raised to 4 because the description effectively groups the filters, aiding agent selection.

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 states 'Get team-match statistics' with a clear verb and resource, and lists the optional filtering dimensions (team, year, event, week, match, elimination status). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_team_match' (likely singular) and 'get_team_event', which focus on different granularities.

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 lists optional filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_team_match' or 'get_matches'. It implies usage for team-match statistics but does not clarify scenarios where one sibling tool would be preferred over another.

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