seriea_match_lineups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the exact return structure (matchId, pitchSize, home/away with fielded players and events) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary of what is returned, followed by the explicit return object shape. Every sentence provides useful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully enumerates the return fields, giving the agent everything needed to interpret the response. It also covers prerequisites, auth requirements, and scoping. This is complete for a lookup tool of moderate complexity.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'Discover the matchId from seriea_matches' echoes the schema's own guidance, adding no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states exactly what the tool does: fetches lineups for one match, with per-side details like formation, fielded XI, bench, and staff. It also distinguishes itself by referencing the prerequisite discovery of matchId from seriea_matches, which differentiates it from other match-lineup tools.

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 clearly indicates this is for a single match and instructs the user to obtain the matchId from seriea_matches first. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the context of 'one match' and the discovery step provides sufficient usage guidance.

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