Match detail

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) already declare safety and open-world nature. Description adds live score/minute overlay when in play, but this is consistent with annotations and does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. Bar is lowered by annotations, so 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences: first states core purpose and live overlay, second gives sourcing guidance, third notes formatting parameters. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Description covers purpose, id sourcing, and parameter effects. For a read-only tool with good annotations, it is fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented. Description mentions that tz/lang/flavor affect formatting but does not add meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it retrieves one match by its id, with live score/minute overlay when in play. It explicitly directs users to get the id from get_today or get_live, and differentiates from get_next_fixture for team matches without an id.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on when to use this tool: get id from get_today or get_live, or use get_next_fixture for team match without id. Also notes that tz/lang/flavor affect formatting, giving context for parameter usage.

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