Get match context dossier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does signal a read-oriented, computed dossier rather than a raw feed. It does not explain whether the dossier is generated on demand, how missing data is handled, or what 'complete' guarantees.

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 dense sentence that leads with the resource and then gives a concrete list of what the dossier contains. Every phrase adds signal; there is no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description compensates by naming the major returned dimensions. It stops short of specifying response shape or value formats, but that is a minor gap for a single-input dossier tool.

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 single matchId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its source tool (openfoot_matches). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed at 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies a match-context dossier resource and enumerates its contents (recent form, Elo delta, rest days, head-to-head, model probabilities), which distinguishes it from lineup/events/xg/odds siblings. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' but the title provides the verb.

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 'assembled for analysis' implies the tool's use case, and the listed fields suggest it is the aggregating alternative to narrower match-data tools. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over openfoot_match_lineups, openfoot_match_xg, or openfoot_matches.

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