entitysport_match_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: auth requires a key in ENTITYSPORT_TOKEN, and the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, advising the agent to inspect the actual payload. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, returns shape, verification note, example, and auth. Each sentence has a purpose, though the returns line is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed without losing value.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the response shape (even if approximate), provides an example, auth requirements, and a caveat about unverified data. The lack of output schema is compensated by the explicit return fields, though the unverified nature limits completeness.

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% with matchId described as 'Required — part of the URL path.' The description adds an example invocation but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns 'One match with squads, toss and current state,' which conveys the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entitysport_matches (list) and match_scorecard/commentary by focusing on match info details, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Fetch.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies single-match usage via 'One match' without mentioning that entitysport_matches lists matches or that scorecard/commentary are separate tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are made.

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