afl_match_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: score is only included 'when started', auth is 'none needed', and the matchId is explicitly 'NOT providerId'. These enrich understanding beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded with the verb+resource in the first sentence. It includes a clear return structure and auth note in two additional lines, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool, the description is fully complete: it explains the return payload, conditional score field, auth requirements, and the ID type distinction. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no additional context is needed.

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 schema description already explains that matchId is the required URL path parameter and not providerId. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'integer id'.

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' with specific contents (teams, venue, time, score). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like afl_matches_list and afl_matches_idmap, and the return shape is explicitly outlined.

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 tool implies use when you have an integer match ID and need one match, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as afl_matches_list or afl_matches_idmap. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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