Match detail

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by mentioning 'live state if available,' indicating conditional data retrieval. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description complements rather than contradicts them. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or rate limits.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loads the essential 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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, it does not explain the return format or the nature of 'live state.' Given the lack of an output schema and moderate complexity (4 parameters), the description could provide more detail on what the tool returns.

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% parameter description coverage (id, tz, lang, flavor). The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool fetches a single match by ID with live state if available. The verb 'get' and resource 'match' are explicit. However, it does not elaborate on what 'live state' means or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_live' or 'get_today'.

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 fetching a specific match, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_live for live matches, get_next_fixture for upcoming). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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