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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data categories, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for invalid ids, rate limits, or what happens when h2h data is unavailable for a match.

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 the resource first and the payload in a compact parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical could have been spent on when-to-use guidance instead.

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?

For a four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what comes back but nothing about failure modes, id sourcing, or how this differs from the live-scores sibling.

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 documents all four parameters. The description only echoes that head-to-head is optional; it adds no meaning for 'language' or the unusual 'notification_message' parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed match information') and enumerates the payload (events, lineups, stats, optional head-to-head). It does not distinguish this from sibling get_live_scores, so an agent must infer that this is the per-match detail call rather than the live listing.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_live_scores or get_competition_day_fixtures. The only implicit cue is the required match id, which comes from the schema, not the description.

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