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 what the tool returns (score, goals, cards, stats, optional report) and notes the report is conditional ('varsa'), but it does not mention error behavior, data availability for missing matches, or any side effects. It's clear it's a read operation, but lacks depth.

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, dense sentence that lists the exact outputs and notes the conditional report. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Highly efficient.

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 simple detail-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main returned data and the optional report. It does not explain how to specify the match (fixture_id) or language, but those are in the schema. Error handling is not addressed, but for a read tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it's adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: only 'dil' has a description. The tool description does not mention either parameter. While 'fixture_id' is self-explanatory, the description adds no context about what it identifies or how to obtain it. With only half the parameters described in the schema and none in the description, it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 verb 'verir' (gives) and the specific resource: a match's score, goals, cards, statistics, and optionally a verified report. It explicitly lists the content, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with lists or standings.

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 usage for retrieving details of a single match, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. The name 'mac_detay' and content make it obvious, but there's no explicit routing guidance.

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