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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dependency on a matchId from other tools, which is useful, but remains vague about what 'deeper insights' includes, error behavior, or output structure. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with the critical prerequisite marked as [CRITICAL] and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and data source dependency, but lacks details about the return format or the specific stats included. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more clarity on what the agent can expect, making it adequate but not complete.

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 description adds meaningful context to the matchId parameter by specifying it must be a valid ID from getEvents or getLiveEvents, going beyond the schema's minimal 'The unique numeric ID.' This directly guides the agent on how to obtain and use the parameter correctly.

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: 'Retrieves extended period-by-period match stats and deeper insights.' This specifies a distinct resource and differentiates from simpler sibling tools like get_match_details or get_match_stats through the emphasis on 'extended' and 'period-by-period.' Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the verb and resource are clear.

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 critical prerequisite: 'Requires a valid matchId obtained from getEvents or getLiveEvents.' This implies a usage flow and dependency, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_detailed_match_stats or get_match_details. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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