pl_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by stating 'Auth: none needed' and enumerating the return fields, which gives the agent clear expectations about the response. No contradiction with 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 two sentences: first states purpose and distinction, second lists return fields and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only tool, the description covers purpose, return fields, auth, and id provenance. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke, though it omits potential error behavior, which is acceptable given the low complexity and strong annotations.

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 input schema already provides a rich description of the id parameter (format, example, source, URL path), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, 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 retrieves a single match's detailed information ('match centre') and distinguishes it from the list-level tool by noting it is 'richer than the list item; adds seasonInfo.' The return field list further reinforces the specific purpose.

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 richer match detail than the list item is needed, but it does not name alternatives like pl_match_events or pl_match_stats, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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