pl_match_lineups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the return structure but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if match ID is invalid).

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 the content, second gives the return format. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous 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 simple input (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the return structure but fails to explain the input parameter or any behavioral aspects. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no structured guidance.

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 schema has one required integer parameter 'id', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., match ID). The agent must infer from the tool name and context, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns match lineups with home/away team players, formation, and subs. The return format is specified, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pl_match (which presumably returns match details) and seriea_match_lineups (different league).

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 when to use the tool (when you need lineups) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pl_match or pl_match_events. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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