get_pro_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering (newest first), the pagination mechanism (less_than_match_id), and that results are enriched with readable fields. This goes beyond a bare read operation, though it does not cover error handling or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. Key facts (scope, ordering, pagination, enrichment) are front-loaded and every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape. It lists the main fields but 'Enriched with readable fields' is vague—it does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., array vs. object) or any additional fields. For a list endpoint with pagination, this is a tolerable but not complete description.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of less_than_match_id for pagination adds minimal value beyond the schema's own description. It does not provide extra semantic context beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the resource (recent professional matches), specifies the included fields (league, teams, score, duration), and states the ordering (newest first). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_match or get_league_matches by the combination of 'most recent' and 'professional'.

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 its use for fetching recent professional matches but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It does provide pagination guidance specifically for less_than_match_id, which is a usage detail, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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