highlightly_soccer_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the return shape is unverified from vendor docs, the score is nested under state, auth via HIGHLIGHTLY_API_KEY is required, and the actual payload should be inspected. This goes beyond 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 somewhat lengthy but each section earns its place: purpose, return shape with caveat, example, and auth note. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and the caveat about unverified shape is important. It could be slightly tighter but is well-organized.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides an approximate return shape, which is critical. It also includes auth requirements and an example. The mention that the shape is unverified and should be inspected is excellent for setting expectations. This is complete for a simple list-like tool.

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%, so the description does not need to define parameters. It adds a brief example of using the date parameter, but does not provide additional semantics for limit, season, or leagueId. This is sufficient given the schema already documents all parameters.

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 identifies the resource (football matches) and the intended purpose (finding matchId for highlight lookup). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like highlightly_soccer_highlights by stating the matchId need. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making the action somewhat implicit.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to obtain a matchId before performing a highlight lookup. This distinguishes it from the highlighted sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear for a straightforward match lookup.

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