get_match_details

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact content returned (score, venue, attendance, chronological events) and explaining that match_id is an ESPN numeric event ID. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then lists return content, then provides usage guidance, and finally explains the parameter format. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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 single parameter, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's function, required input format, and how to obtain the match ID. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema only defines match_id as a string with no description. The description compensates by clarifying that it is an ESPN numeric event ID, providing an example ('401853883'). This gives the agent actionable guidance for supplying the parameter correctly.

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 detailed information for a single Premier League match' and enumerates the specific return fields (score, venue, attendance, key events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scoreboard or get_team_schedule, which provide broader match lists, by focusing on a single match's details.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for single-match details and instructs the agent to obtain the match_id from get_scoreboard or get_team_schedule. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the prerequisite and scope provide sufficient guidance for tool selection.

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