pl_match_officials

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

No annotations provided. The description only states the return format and does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It relies entirely on the description, which lacks depth.

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, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the resource. Every sentence provides essential information without unnecessary words.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks explanation of the parameter and potential errors. It is not fully complete.

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 sole parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what the id represents (e.g., match ID). This forces the agent to infer from the return structure.

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 officials (referee, assistants, VAR) and provides the return structure. It distinguishes from siblings like pl_match or pl_match_lineups by focusing specifically on officials.

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 the tool is for retrieving match officials but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pl_match might also contain officials). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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