analyze-match-opponents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the tool 'Shows each team's recent award history,' implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not detail the output format, any potential side effects, or limitations (e.g., data size for 'all matches'). This is moderate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 and well-structured: three short sentences that state the core function, the value-add (award history), and the intended use case. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 explains the purpose and use case but lacks details about the return value or output structure. Since there is no output schema, the description does not compensate for that gap. It also doesn't explicitly note that both team and event identifiers are needed, though the schema hints at this. The description is adequate but incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, covering their types and conditional requirements. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify the relationship between team and event parameters or provide additional constraints. Given the 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 tool's function: 'Analyze teammates and opponents for all matches of a team at an event.' It names the specific resource (matches for a team/event) and differentiates from siblings by combining match analysis with 'recent award history' for competitive context. The verb 'Analyze' is somewhat broad, but the resource and scope are well-defined.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for pre-competition scouting and match preparation.' This gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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