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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the range of payloads available per sport, but says nothing about response size, pagination, or whether a given part is always present for any sport.

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 that wastes no words and puts the resource ('one match') ahead of the payload list. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves several questions unanswered that a slightly longer description could have addressed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden of describing returns, which it does at a high level via the payload enumeration. However, it omits routing guidance relative to three closely related match siblings and gives no sense of response shape or sport-dependent availability.

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 each parameter (lang, part, sport, match_id) is already documented in the schema with its allowed values and cross-references (list_sports, get_matches). The description only restates the payload vocabulary already present in the 'part' description, adding no new syntax or constraints.

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 names a concrete verb+resource ('Detail of one match') and enumerates the content payloads available (statistics/box score, lineups, injuries, play-by-play). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_match or get_match_briefing, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_match, get_match_briefing, or get_live_matches. The enumeration of 'part' values implies that different content types are available, but the agent must infer which sibling to pick with no stated condition or exclusion.

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