tab_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds useful context: the return structure (id, name, startTime, markets, sameGame, contestants, inPlay, stats) and the auth behavior (works without a key, TAB_CLIENT_ID/SECRET unlocks more). This goes beyond annotations by explaining what data is returned and the auth requirement.

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, a return structure block, an example, and an auth note. Every section adds value. The example is particularly useful. Slightly verbose with the JSON return structure, but it's informative and not excessive.

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 tool's complexity (full match book with markets, SGM, contestants, live state, stats), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how to call it, and auth requirements. It doesn't explain pagination or rate limits, but those aren't mentioned in annotations either. The output schema is absent, so the return structure in the description is essential and well-provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds an example with actual values (AFL Football, AFL, Adelaide v Geelong) which helps the agent understand the format. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for the jurisdiction parameter (which has a default). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full match book: all markets + bet options, Same Game Multi, contestants, live state and stats.' It specifies the resource (match book) and the scope (all markets, bet options, SGM, contestants, live state, stats). It distinguishes from siblings like tab_match_markets (which likely only returns markets) and tab_multi_builder (which builds multis).

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 concrete example of how to use the tool with parameters (sport, competition, match) and notes that it works without a key, with optional auth for more data. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the example and the 'full match book' scope imply it's the comprehensive match data tool. Sibling tools like tab_match_markets are more specific, so the usage context is clear enough.

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