tab_match

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions return fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits (read-only, idempotence, auth requirements, rate limits). Does not state that it is a read operation.

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?

Two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff, but the return structure list is useful. Efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lists return fields but does not explain each field's meaning or the role of jurisdiction. It is adequate for a simple 'get details' tool but lacks detail for parameters.

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 0%, but the description adds no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (match, sport, competition, jurisdiction). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 'Full match book' and lists included components (markets, bet options, SGM, contestants, live state, stats), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like tab_match_markets which likely returns only markets. However, the title is null and 'match book' could be more precise.

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?

Implies usage for comprehensive match data but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tab_match_markets or tab_sport. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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