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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the anonymization guarantee ('Totals only, never who voted what'), the inclusion of a vote link, and the conditional availability of the result after voting closes. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which sits awkwardly against a verb ('Get') that reads as a pure fetch — the description neither explains nor resolves that mismatch, so transparency is partial.

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 with a colon-separated payload list, plus one short guarantee clause. Zero filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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 return-value burden and does so well by enumerating the expected fields and the vote-anonymity rule. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g., invalid or unknown matchId) and leaves the readOnlyHint=false annotation unexplained.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating where the id comes from ('from pick_teams or get_squad'). Per the high-coverage rule, 3 is the baseline; the description adds nothing about matchId, but nothing is needed either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a match') and enumerates exactly what the caller receives: teams, score, vote link, vote count, and the closed-voting result. An agent can predict the payload without opening the schema, though it never explicitly distinguishes this from siblings like get_squad or list_squads.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the twelve sibling tools. The only timing hint is that the result appears 'once voting has closed', which describes a field's availability rather than when to call this tool.

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