get_event_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is clearly non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the exact return fields (alliance compositions, scores, score breakdown, video links, timing), providing transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, return fields, and sibling references. Every sentence provides essential information with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 single parameter with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: returns all matches for an event with full details. It mentions lighter alternatives for different needs. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. No missing critical 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, including a detailed description of event_key format and how to discover valid keys. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches every match at an FRC event, including qualification, playoff, and finals, and lists the full match records returned. It distinguishes itself from lighter siblings (get_event_matches_simple, get_event_matches_keys) by noting they are lighter variants, so agents know which to choose.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying what data is returned and mentions lighter variants as alternatives for simpler needs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe prerequisites, but the sibling references effectively guide decision-making.

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