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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about plan-dependent content (market prices on PRO, model analysis on ULTRA) and lists the specific fields included, which helps set expectations about the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key fields; the second sentence adds plan-specific context. No superfluous words.

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?

The description, combined with the schema and annotations, fully covers what the tool returns and the variations by plan. The presence of an output schema means return formatting doesn't need to be described. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state behavior on free tiers, but the output schema likely signals optional fields.

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 for match_id is 100%, and the schema already explains the parameter's provenance (as returned by other tools). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'by id', so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving full details for a specific match by ID, and enumerates the key fields (players, score, surface, round, status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific aspects (e.g., get_match_score, get_match_odds). The verb 'get' is implicit in the name, but the phrasing 'Full detail for one match by id' is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 comprehensive match information rather than a specific sub-detail, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_match_score or get_match_analysis. The plan-dependent note ('on PRO and ULTRA') provides context for content availability, but not when to choose this tool over others.

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