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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only operation, so the description's added value is in disclosing the available content per sport and the important data-quality rule that unknown injury values are null and must not be guessed. That is meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss response size, pagination, or freshness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs the sport-specific variants into one dense sentence. It is efficient, though the long enumeration makes it somewhat harder to scan than a short structured list.

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 read-only retrieval tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description gives an adequate domain map of what each part can return across sports. The explicit null-handling note for injuries is a valuable completeness detail, though more guidance on sibling selection would make it stronger.

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 parameters are already fully documented structurally. The description largely restates the sport-specific part values that the schema itself enumerates, adding little semantic detail about formats or constraints beyond what is already provided.

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 that this tool returns details for a single match and enumerates the sport-specific content types available. It is specific enough to distinguish from broad listing tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_match, get_match_briefing, or get_summary.

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 is implied: call this when you need deeper match detail rather than a summary or list. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_match, get_match_briefing, or get_summary, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the schema's note that match_id comes from get_matches.

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