nrl_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety and mutability. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the full return JSON structure, the note 'Auth: none needed,' and the pointer to stat code definitions. 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 and front-loaded with a clear summary. It efficiently covers contents, return shape, an example, and auth in a compact, information-dense format. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining the return value—it does so comprehensively with a detailed JSON structure. It also covers the scope of data (stats, rosters, sin bins, reports), provides an example, and mentions auth and stat code decoding. This is complete for a read-only data retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, with both matchId and competitionId already explained in detail ('Required — part of the URL path'). The description adds an example JSON usage, which reinforces parameter meaning but doesn't introduce new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full match file: per-player match statistics' and 'This is the per-player, per-match stat source.' It specifies the resource (match file), scope (per-player, per-match), and distinguishes itself from siblings like nrl_fixture by being the detailed stat source.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('per-player, per-match stat source') and provides a concrete example. It also directs users to decode stat codes via nrl://stats/definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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