pl_match_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond the obvious data retrieval.

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: a single sentence stating purpose and a return format example. It is front-loaded with the tool's core function and contains no redundant information.

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 the complexity of event data, the description provides a useful return structure but lacks parameter documentation and behavioral context. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but incomplete without clarifying the required parameter.

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 has one parameter 'id' with type integer and no description. Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., match ID, season ID), leaving the agent to guess. This is a critical gap.

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 it returns match events (goals, cards, subs) split by home/away team, with specific fields like playerId, time, period, timestamp. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_match_commentary or pl_match_lineups by focusing on event data.

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 when match events are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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