get_match_details

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

The description mentions that 'Fresh data is fetched by default,' which implies a caching mechanism and the use_cache parameter. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence conveying the core purpose and the second adding a key behavioral detail. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded for quick scanning. No unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete in stating its purpose and caching behavior. However, it lacks usage guidance and detailed parameter descriptions. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description could still mention the type of details returned. Sibling tools suggest overlap, so more context would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that match_id_or_url can be a match ID or URL, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., numeric ID vs. full URL). The use_cache parameter is implied but not explicitly described. This partially addresses the gap but is not exhaustive.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'FotMob match details' and specifies input via match id or URL. It distinguishes from siblings like get_match_liveticker by focusing on general details, but does not explicitly contrast with other similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_match_liveticker, get_league_top_stats). It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where alternatives are preferred.

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