get_match_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates a read-only lookup via 'Get' and specifies the main content categories returned. It does not cover error behavior or prerequisites, but for a simple single-ID read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and what the returned details include. It could mention that matchId may come from get_matches_by_date or address missing-match behavior, but these are minor gaps.

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 already describes matchId as a 'FotMob match ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond referencing a single match, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 retrieves detailed info for a single match, enumerating lineups, stats, events, and score. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_matches_by_date (date-based listing), get_team, get_player, and get_league.

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 phrase 'for a single match' makes the use case clear: call this when a specific match ID is already known and full match-level detail is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with list-oriented siblings is evident.

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