get_match_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions the output order (goals, cards, substitutions) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the match is not found. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, placing a high burden on the description. While it mentions the types of events, it does not explain the output structure, the raw parameter's effect, or the language parameter's role. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the full behavior, making it incomplete.

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 schema has 33% description coverage (only raw and language have descriptions). The description adds meaning by naming the four required IDs and explaining that idMatch comes from get_matches, which is helpful. However, it does not detail the raw or language parameters, leaving gaps. This is adequate compensation given the low 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 states 'Get one match's event timeline in order: goals, cards, substitutions, and other key events,' which uniquely identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_matches or get_live_match, limiting clarity for an agent choosing among them.

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 specifies the required parameters (idCompetition, idSeason, idStage, idMatch) and notes that idMatch comes from get_matches, providing a usage context. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or alternative tools, making it merely adequate.

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