pl_match_lineups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return structure, which are useful behavioral/contextual details beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error cases.

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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, return format, and auth. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly complete. It provides the return structure, essential given no output schema. However, it lacks mention of data availability (e.g., lineups not published until a certain time) or field interpretation details.

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% with the parameter 'id' described as 'Match id. Required — part of the URL path.' The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden.

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 retrieves match lineups with home/away team players, formation, and subs. This specific resource and data fields distinguish it from sibling tools like pl_match or pl_match_stats.

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 lineups but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name and description alone.

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