get_recent_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 조회 implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose freshness of results, rate limits, permissions, response format, or what 'recent' means exactly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the purpose immediately and every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, but it omits any sport/league context that would help distinguish it from the NBA-specific siblings, and gives no indication of result freshness or return shape.

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 both team_name and count are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a vague team scope and 'recent' qualifier, not meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (조회/retrieve), resource (경기 결과/match results), and scope (특정 팀/specific team), so the core action is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_nba_team_games or get_live_scores, which could also return team-related game data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_live_scores, get_upcoming_fixtures, or get_nba_team_games. The purpose implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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