tab_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by showing the exact return shape and explaining auth behavior: 'works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET or TAB_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then gives a compact return structure, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, and the example is especially useful for an agent constructing inputs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return fields. It covers required inputs with an example, describes return contents, and discloses auth requirements. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether the response can be large, but these are not critical for invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example mapping sport, competition, and match to values, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already explains that the three required parameters are part of the URL path.

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 identifies the tool as a comprehensive match lookup: 'Full match book: all markets + bet options, Same Game Multi, contestants, live state and stats.' It is distinct enough from the sibling tab_match_markets because it promises the full match payload rather than only markets, though it never explicitly names the sibling.

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 by showing an example input for a single AFL match and listing the broad returned content, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like tab_match_markets or tab_sgm_price. The intended context is clear but no exclusions or comparison are provided.

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