pl_match_officials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which tell the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a return object structure ({matchId, matchOfficials: [...]}), which are useful behavioral details not covered by annotations. This exceeds the baseline while remaining concise, though it doesn't address error handling or empty results.

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, consisting of a short purpose phrase, a return signature, and an auth note. It front-loads the resource name and roles, and every sentence carries useful information with no filler. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 tool's simplicity (one required integer parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context for basic usage: it names the resource, identifies the input, and gives a partial return shape. The '…' leaves some response fields unspecified, but for a straightforward read-only fetch this is sufficient. Missing details like error responses or empty behaviors are not critical for this simple tool.

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 already covers the single parameter exhaustively with 'Match id. Required — part of the URL path.' The tool description does not add any further insight about the id parameter, such as how to obtain it or any value constraints. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description contributes no additional semantic value.

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 identifies the resource as 'Match officials' and enumerates the specific roles (referee, assistants, fourth official, VAR), making it unambiguous what data is returned. The 'Returns:' line reinforces that it provides match officials for a given match. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than an action statement.

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 no guidance on when to select this tool over sibling tools such as pl_match, pl_match_lineups, or pl_match_stats. There are no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent has no clue about the intended use case beyond the tool's obvious resource type.

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