get_match_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the relevant scope constraint (pre-match/upcoming only) and what categories of data come back, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown clubs, fixture-not-found cases, data freshness, or caching.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource come first, followed by an enumerated payload list that is dense but each item is informative. No filler or repetition, though the parenthetical formation example is slightly expendable.

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 is the only source of return-value information, and it enumerates the dossier components well enough for an agent to know what it gets. Its only real gap is scope limits (which leagues, how far in advance fixtures are covered) and behavior when the fixture cannot be resolved.

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% with example values for both home_club and away_club, so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. The description adds no format guidance beyond implying that home/away orientation matters for the matchup analysis, which is the baseline expectation rather than added value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precisely scoped resource ('pre-match tactical dossiers for upcoming fixtures'), then enumerates the payload: formation clash, manager records, starter matchups, medical availability, and 5-game form. The contents overlap heavily with siblings like get_predicted_lineup, get_injuries, and get_match_report, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for upcoming fixtures', which signals this is a pre-match tool rather than a post-match one. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this composite dossier over the narrower siblings (get_predicted_lineup, get_injuries, get_match_report), nor any exclusion such as league coverage or how far ahead fixtures are available.

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