get_mlc_match_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sample-size floors are enforced (results may be suppressed), and provides a permanent citable URL, which indicates idempotency and caching potential. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each adding valuable information: the tool's output and key details (kinds, URL, sample-size enforcement). No unnecessary words.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. However, it could briefly describe the structure of a claim card to improve completeness for agent invocation.

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 kind enum values explicitly, compensating for 0% schema description coverage. However, matchId is not described, leaving its purpose implicit. The schema's enum is conveyed, but additional details (e.g., format of matchId) are missing.

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 this tool retrieves a single atomic claim card from an MLC match, enumerates the specific kinds (top-batter, top-bowler, biggest-partnership, pp-control, death-domination), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_atomic_claims (which likely returns multiple claims) and get_mlc_match (full match summary).

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 implies usage when a specific claim card is needed but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., list_atomic_claims for multiple claims). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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