pl_match_lineups

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating no auth is needed and detailing the return structure ({home_team:{players, formation, subs}, away_team:{…}}). It also discloses that the tool covers Serie A lineups ('Also answers this: seriea_match_lineups'), which is a behavioral trait. The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are consistent; no contradiction.

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, front-loading the purpose and return format. It avoids filler, though the final phrase 'Also answers this: seriea_match_lineups' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer. Overall, it is an efficient 3–4 sentence definition.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers essential aspects: return format, auth requirements, and league coverage. It doesn't discuss error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward lookup. The cross-league note and missing output schema are adequately addressed by the inline return structure.

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% for the only parameter (id), and the schema's description already explains it as 'Match id. Required — part of the URL path.' The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation.

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 returns match lineups with formation and subs, and provides the return structure. It also explicitly mentions it can serve seriea_match_lineups, which helps an agent distinguish it from that sibling. However, it does not explicitly state the league (Premier League) in the description, relying on the tool name, which is a minor ambiguity.

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 provides 'Auth: none needed' but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Also answers this: seriea_match_lineups' hints at a use case but without conditions or exclusions. There is no statement like 'use this for Premier League lineups, and also for Serie A lineups when needed.' This leaves selection to inference.

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