Get match lineup (DWF)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the availability constraint (requires digital match form) and the null-return behavior for matches without DWF data, which are the key non-obvious behaviors. It does not mention error behavior for invalid match_guid, but the covered behaviors are the most important for correct invocation.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, the exact data included, and the key edge case without any wasted words. The primary function is stated first, with the availability caveat following naturally.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, what it includes, and when it returns null. It is slightly light on the exact return shape (e.g., whether a list or object is expected), but the prose is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter match_guid is documented with an example. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the exact resource (digital scoresheet participants: players and coaches with jersey numbers) and the action (get), making it unambiguous. It also differentiates this from sibling match/team tools by focusing specifically on lineup participants rather than match metadata, standings, or team lists.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: the tool only works when a digital match form exists and explicitly signals that null is returned for matches without DWF data. It does not name alternative tools for such cases, but the null-return explanation gives an agent enough context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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