afl_match_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that 'score' is present only when started, which adds transparency. However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or what happens with invalid IDs.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose statement. The return structure is shown compactly. No wasted words, though the return structure could be better formatted.

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 provides a partial return structure (meta and matches array with fields). Lacking an output schema, it is fairly complete for a simple tool, but does not explain meta, status, providerId, or potential edge cases. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The only parameter matchId is described as 'integer id', which redundantly restates the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not add meaningful semantic context about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage beyond the obvious.

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 'Get a single match by integer id' and lists the returned fields (teams, venue, time, score when started). This distinguishes it from siblings like afl_matches_list (which lists many matches) and afl_matches_idmap (id mapping).

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 when you have a match ID but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternative tool like afl_matches_list. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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