seriea_match_lineups

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds 'Auth: none needed' and details the response structure, including pitch size and per-player metrics. It explains what data is included (average pitch positions, per-player events, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 with an opening summary, a Returns block, and an auth note. It is somewhat lengthy due to the inline return schema, but this compensates for the absence of an output schema. Content is front-loaded and easy to scan, with minimal filler. The closing alias note is extraneous but not disruptive.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a concrete return structure, covers authentication, and directs the user to find matchId via seriea_matches. It does not explicitly state the league scope (Serie A), though the tool name implies it. The ambiguous 'Also answers this: pl_match_lineups' introduces uncertainty about whether it covers Premier League too, which is a gap in completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., it repeats the source for matchId, which is already in the schema). The locale default is given in the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; no additional value from the description.

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 a detailed breakdown of per-side content (tactical formation, fielded XI with positions, captain/GK flags, events, bench, staff). The verb-resource pair is explicit and the return structure is shown. The only oddity is the closing 'Also answers this: pl_match_lineups', which is ambiguous but does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 a prerequisite ('Discover the matchId from seriea_matches') which guides the agent to obtain a required input. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling pl_match_lineups, nor does it state when not to use it. The phrase 'Also answers this: pl_match_lineups' hints at a possible overlap but lacks clarity on selection criteria.

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