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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the editorial score is an opinion of nuevedediciembre.com rather than an official statistic and must be attributed to the site, and the match article is included only when it exists.

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 three short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core payload, the second adds the important editorial-opinion caveat, and the third states the conditional inclusion of the match article. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so well by listing formation, per-player statistics, editorial scores, and the optional article. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe response nesting or how missing fields beyond the article are handled.

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 id and locale are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully handles parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 is clear about what the tool returns: a single match with its formation, per-player minutes, goals, assists, cards, and an editorial 0–10 rating, plus the published match article when available. It is specific about the resource and content, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like get_matches or get_article, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs a detailed match report with player ratings and stats. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no pointer to get_matches for finding match IDs, and no mention of when not to use it.

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