seriea_match_lineups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return structure and data fields, indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any potential side effects, which is acceptable for a data retrieval tool.

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 two sentences plus a return structure, all front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is necessary, no filler, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 complexity of lineup data, the description outlines the return object including nested fields (e.g., fielded, benched, staff). It lacks an output schema but compensates with a detailed example. Could mention optional parameters or more edge cases.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions the need for matchId and seasonId (referenced via seriea_matches). It does not explain the 'locale' parameter or provide format/validation details, offering minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 it returns lineups for one match with tactical formation, fielded XI (including positions, flags, events), bench, and staff. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying per-side detail and referencing seriea_matches to obtain matchId.

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?

It advises to discover matchId from seriea_matches, providing clear prerequisite context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though the sibling list implies it's for detailed lineup retrieval.

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