afl_matches_idmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those hints: the payload size (~48 KB), the exact return structure, and the fact that no authentication is required. This is meaningful additional behavioral disclosure that helps set expectations for a read-only mapping operation.

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 extremely concise, leading with the core purpose in the first line, then providing a clear return example and an auth note. Every sentence carries information, and the format is well-structured with 'Returns:' and 'Auth:' labels. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only mapping tool, the description is fully sufficient. It explains exactly what data is returned (including an example entry), the approximate size, and that no auth is needed. Combined with the annotations, the agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly without an output schema.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does refer to 'every match providerId', which clarifies the scope of the mapping and the format of the keys (CD_M*), effectively adding semantic clarity that the schema cannot provide.

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 maps every match providerId (CD_M*) to its integer id, which is a specific verb (map), specific resource (match providerIds), and the target distinction from sibling idmap tools like afl_teams_idmap and afl_players_idmap. The return format is also illustrated with a concrete example.

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?

Although the description implies the tool should be used when a match providerId (CD_M*) needs to be converted to an integer id, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative tools like afl_teams_idmap or afl_players_idmap, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisite conditions. There is no direct usage guidance beyond the obvious mapping purpose.

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