Get match detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the returned data categories and the conditional include_history behavior. It does not cover not-found/error cases, but the read-only nature and effect of the optional flag are clear.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and key identifier, list what the response contains, and explain the optional flag with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose, identifier provenance, returned content, and optional behavior. The only notable gaps are no mention of error/not-found behavior and no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_match_lineup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by giving an example GUID, stating that the GUID comes from the *matches tools, and clarifying include_history returns 'raw rescheduling history' rather than just the verbose field.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get full details of one match'), identifies the key identifier (match GUID with example), and lists what is included (teams, venue, officials, planning status), which distinguishes it from list/lineup siblings.

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?

Provides clear context: use this tool to fetch a single match by GUID, and the GUID comes from the *matches tools. It does not explicitly contrast with get_match_lineup or the list-style sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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