pl_match_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: return structure (array of 2 objects with side/teamId/stats), the scale of data (~200 metrics), and that no auth is needed. It does not repeat annotation information, complying with the guideline.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a concise summary, then return format, then auth. It uses bullet-like lines and an example of the return shape without unnecessary prose. Every sentence provides useful 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description compensates by showing the return structure and example fields. It covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the shape, scale, and auth. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but these are not critical for a read-only stats endpoint with a single required parameter.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Match id. Required — part of the URL path.'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Full team match stats' with ~200 Opta metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pl_match and pl_match_events by focusing on team-level granular stats and providing a return structure example.

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 context—if you need comprehensive team-level stats for a match, use this tool. It clearly indicates what data it returns (possession, shots, xG, etc.), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. That prevents a higher score.

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