pl_match_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context: the return structure and 'Auth: none needed'. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read-only operation with good annotations, this is sufficient extra behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: first line describes the content, second line gives return format, third line states auth. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the exact return shape, making the output predictable. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the explicit return type description.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is already well-described as 'Match id. Required — part of the URL path.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, but the schema fully documents it, so a baseline of 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 resource (match events) and specifies the exact content (goals, cards, subs) and split by home/away team. It includes the return structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pl_match_lineups and pl_match_stats. Though lacking an explicit verb, 'Match events' unambiguously implies retrieval.

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 fetching match events for a given match id, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from context among many pl_* siblings.

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