get_match_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (score, venue, attendance, chronological events), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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: a clear opening sentence, a sentence listing return contents, a usage hint, and an Args block. Every sentence contributes important information, and the format is easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is complete. It explains how to obtain the required input (match ID from scoreboard/schedule) and what the output covers, leaving no critical gaps.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (match_id: string) with no description. The description compensates by explaining that match_id is an 'ESPN numeric event ID' and provides an example format ('401853883'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it could be even more detailed about accepted formats.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information for a single USL Super League match.' It lists specific return contents (score, venue, attendance, chronological key events) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scoreboard and get_team_schedule 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 explicitly directs the user to use a match ID returned by get_scoreboard or get_team_schedule, which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the input-source guidance effectively communicates the intended workflow.

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