openligadb_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not restate them. It adds useful context: 'Auth: none needed' and a full return structure with field names and types. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage and helps the agent anticipate the response, though it doesn't cover edge cases like missing IDs or errors.

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 compact and front-loaded. The primary purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by the return shape, a practical example, and the auth note. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only single-parameter tool, this description covers the key elements: purpose, return payload, example invocation, and auth. It doesn't explain how to obtain a matchId within the description, but the schema and sibling list tools fill that gap. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by the inline return field list.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (matchId) with type, required flag, and provenance ('from either match-list tool'). The description adds a concrete example value, but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented statement: 'One match by id, with goals and scorers.' This clearly identifies the tool as a single-match lookup and highlights the key included data (goals, scorers), distinguishing it from sibling list-type tools like openligadb_season_matches and openligadb_matchday_matches.

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 when a specific match ID is known (via the example and 'by id'), but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The input schema hints that the matchId comes from a match-list tool, but that guidance lives outside the description itself. This leaves usage context mostly implicit.

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