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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: unpublished fields (e.g. a future match's score) are omitted rather than null, which tells the agent how to interpret a sparse response. It does not mention error handling for an invalid id, but the key data-shape caveat is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: contents first, data-availability caveat second, id-sourcing instruction last. The most decision-relevant information (what comes back) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully summarizes the field set and the omission rule, so an agent can decide whether this call answers a given question. Complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only edge-case behavior (bad id) left implicit.

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 100% and the lone match_id parameter is already documented with a concrete example in the schema. The description adds nothing about the id format or validity that the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one match') and enumerates the payload (teams, competition, date, score, officials, goals, timeline events), which immediately separates it from the list-oriented siblings. An agent knows this is a single-record lookup, not a search.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to fussballde_matchday or fussballde_match_plan to obtain the required match id, which is the real prerequisite for this tool. It stops short of contrasting with adjacent single-match tools such as fussballde_match_comparison or fussballde_match_calendar, so no full when/when-not matrix.

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