Evaluate a Match

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the Pro token requirement and the detailed return content (every market's pick and full block breakdown). No contradictions exist.

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 with no filler: the action is front-loaded, the output scope is concrete, and the access requirement is stated. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, the evaluation trigger, and the token requirement. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly routing to sibling tools for batch evaluation or alternative data views, but nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and already explains matchId, including its source from flab_evaluate_matches. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Score a match') and defines the exact output ('every market's pick with the full block breakdown'). The phrase 'on demand' and the singular 'a match' distinguish this tool from batch-oriented siblings like flab_evaluate_matches.

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 use for scoring a single match immediately, and explicitly notes the Pro token requirement. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus flab_evaluate_matches, flab_match_details, or flab_pick_details.

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