faceit_get_match_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation via 'Get' and lists what is returned, but it does not discuss potential errors, required permissions, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the returned content categories. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the key information categories (teams, players, competition info, status, results), giving the agent a solid sense of what to expect. For a straightforward one-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could benefit from noting any distinctive behaviors like optional filters or match state variations.

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 fully documents the only parameter (match_id) with a clear description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('general details for a specific FACEIT match'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like faceit_get_match_stats by focusing on 'details' rather than 'stats'. It also enumerates key content (teams, players, competition info, status, results), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need general match details—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives like faceit_get_match_stats. The positioning as 'general details' offers some differentiation, but exclusions are absent.

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