pl_match_commentary

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it states that the result is paginated, provides the return shape ({pagination, data:[...]}), and explicitly notes 'Auth: none needed.' These details help the agent understand the response format and access requirements.

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 highly concise: a one-line purpose, a return shape, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancies, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides the return structure and notes pagination, which is crucial since no output schema is present. It briefly mentions auth, but does not explain how to use next_cursor for pagination or the meaning of all data fields (e.g., type, team1, team2). Given the simplicity of the tool and the strong annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including defaults and types. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the tool provides a 'live text commentary feed for a match (paginated)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_match_events or pl_match_stats by focusing on commentary.

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 the tool is for retrieving live text commentary, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as pl_match_events or pl_match_stats. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the guidance remains 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.