footballdataorg_match

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating the need for a key (403 without), providing a detailed return shape, and warning that the shape is from vendor docs and unverified. This gives the agent critical caveats about data reliability. It does not contradict any 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key requirement, then uses labeled sections for return shape, example, and auth. The detailed return shape is justified given there is no output schema, so the length is warranted. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, parameter, example, auth, return shape, and a caveat about verification. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool and handle the response.

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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description of matchId as required and part of the URL path. The description adds an example usage but no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 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?

Description states 'One match with lineups, goals, bookings and head-to-head' which clearly identifies the resource (a single match) and the data returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like footballdataorg_matches which return multiple matches. It uses a specific resource and scope.

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 use for a single match via 'One match' and provides an example with matchId. It also notes the auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as footballdataorg_matches or footballdataorg_competition_matches, nor does it mention exclusions.

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