get_live_match

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that not-yet-started matches have empty lineups and null scores, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the data is cached or requires authentication, though the tool name suggests live data.

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 two sentences with no redundant information: it first enumerates return fields, then clarifies behavior for edge cases and required parameters.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and edge cases. It misses details on optional parameters and authentication, but for a single-match retrieval tool, the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 description lists the four required parameters (idCompetition, idSeason, idStage, idMatch) but does not explain their meaning beyond the names. Schema coverage is only 33%, and the description partially compensates by naming required ones, but does not clarify the optional parameters (raw, language).

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 specifies the exact data fields returned (starting lineups, substitutes, officials, attendance, weather, live score, status) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_matches and get_match_timeline by focusing on rich detail for a single 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 explains that the tool works for any match state and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_matches for list views or get_match_timeline for timeline events.

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