fotmob_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it marks the data as public, says the data field preserves the upstream JSON shape, and warns that individual sections may be absent. It doesn't address errors or rate limits, but the key read-only passthrough behavior 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the purpose before enumerating payload sections and adding the absence caveat. The opening 'FotMob match details' is slightly redundant with the following sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the relevant payload sections, explains that the data field keeps the upstream JSON shape, and notes that sections may be absent. For a single-id lookup whose only parameter is fully documented, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the sole id parameter is already described as 'Numeric FotMob match id'. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics, but none are needed because the schema fully documents the input; this is the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns FotMob's public match-details payload' and enumerates the sections included, so an agent knows this is a full-match detail fetcher. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from fotmob_matches or fotmob_player_match_stats, but the singular 'match details' framing makes the core purpose clear.

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 intended use is implied by 'match details' and the required 'id' parameter: call it when you have a FotMob match id and need the complete match payload. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like fotmob_matches or fotmob_player_match_stats, nor gives any when-not conditions.

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