pl_match_commentary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and return structure, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or what occurs if the match ID is invalid. Basic transparency is present but limited.

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 concise with two sentences, focusing on purpose and return structure. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more detailed without being verbose.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It only partially describes return fields but omits parameter explanations, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (id, sort, limit, next_cursor). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter purposes and usage.

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 provides 'live text commentary feed for a match (paginated)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_match_events (events) and pl_match_lineups. It specifies the verb (feed), resource (commentary), and scope (paginated, for a match).

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 usage for live text commentary but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives such as pl_match_events or pl_match_stats. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools is provided.

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