get_match_details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the response includes score, venue, attendance, and a chronological list of key events. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: purpose, return payload, usage, and parameter details in a compact structure. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

With one parameter, clear parameter semantics, and an output schema present, the description provides complete contextual coverage. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required ID, while annotations handle the safety profile.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that match_id is an ESPN numeric event ID and providing a concrete example. It also tells the agent where to obtain the ID, which is exactly what is needed to populate the sole 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 opens with 'Get detailed information for a single MLS match', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It immediately lists returned fields (score, venue, attendance, key events), clearly distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like get_scoreboard and get_team_schedule.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use the match ID returned by get_scoreboard or get_team_schedule, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not state explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is actionable and helpful.

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