get_match_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves detailed data for a single match, suggesting it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors (e.g., if slug is invalid). The behavioral scope is clear but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, key output fields, and parameter source. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately gives an example. Every clause adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description effectively outlines the return data (score, status, timeline, lineups). For a simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, this is sufficient. However, it could mention pagination or data freshness, but overall it provides enough context for correct usage.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage, and the description adds context by explaining where slugs come from (get_matches results, match URLs). The sport parameter is self-explanatory with enum values. The description enhances the schema by providing the source for the slug, adding value beyond the schema's basic type/options.

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 the tool provides detailed match data including score, status, timeline, and lineups for a single match identified by slug. It distinguishes itself by specifying the exact data fields returned, and the example slug format clarifies usage. Siblings like get_matches list matches, while this tool dives into one, making the purpose distinct.

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 mentions slugs come from get_matches results or match URLs, providing a source for the parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_tracker for live tracking), nor does it specify limitations or prerequisites beyond obtaining the slug.

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