nrl_match

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

Despite no annotations, the description provides extensive detail on output structure and data types (including nested objects), and mentions stat code decoding via an external resource. It implies a read-only data fetch with no side effects, though not explicitly stated.

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, front-loading purpose, then listing contents, and providing an explicit return structure and example. It is moderately concise, with some elaboration justified by the complexity of the data.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output comprehensively, including return shape and an example. It lacks details on limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits) but is complete for the tool's apparent purpose.

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 description does not mention or explain the two required parameters (competitionId, matchId). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema. The example implies parameters but does not map them.

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 'full match file' with detailed per-player statistics, per-period stats, rosters, etc. It explicitly identifies itself as 'the per-player, per-match stat source', distinguishing it from other NRL tools like nrl_fixture.

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 this is for detailed per-player match stats, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., nrl_fixture for basic match info). No 'when-not-to' guidance or references to sibling tools.

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