Get match events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the output nature: a timeline of goals, cards, substitutions, VAR checks, and live commentary. But it doesn't mention edge cases, response format, match-status behavior, or whether the data is read-only, though 'Get' and 'Timeline' imply a non-destructive read.

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?

One sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then enumerates concrete contents, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, no nested objects. The description provides enough context to know what data will be returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of any detail about the response envelope or ordering guarantees, but 'Timeline' sufficiently implies chronological order.

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%: the single matchId parameter is fully documented by the schema with a useful origin hint ('returned by openfoot_matches'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is necessary given the schema's clarity.

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 resource and outcome: 'Timeline of events in a match' followed by concrete event types. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like match_lineups, match_xg, and match_context, which cover different aspects of a match.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for match events and commentary, so the usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for other match-related data, leaving some routing up to the agent.

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