get_match_prep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden: the content list makes clear this is a read-only aggregated report, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention authentication needs (despite a login sibling), rate limits, data recency, or how 'Builder+' changes behavior, so disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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 short and front-loaded: the first clause immediately communicates the output board and its sections, and the parameter hints are compact. The trailing 'Builder+.' is cryptic and contributes little, but overall there is minimal waste.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone; it does make the required call viable by documenting the required parameters and output sections. Yet it leaves optional parameters ambiguous, does not define 'kr_match_id', and does not explain the returned structure or caveats around betting insights, so clear gaps remain.

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 0%, and the description compensates for the two required parameters: it enumerates allowed sport values and gives two valid match_slug formats. The remaining three parameters (date, team1, team2) are undocumented in both schema and description, and their role as optional filters is not explained.

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 names the resource ('Match prep board') and enumerates concrete contents (team stats, mode winrates, map pool & side biases, form, key player matchups, betting insights), so it is not tautological and can be told apart from siblings like get_player_board or get_match. It lacks an explicit verb in the description and leaves 'Builder+.' unexplained, which costs the top score.

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 only usage guidance is the valid sport list and accepted match_slug formats, which are more parameter-format hints than selection criteria. It never states when to choose this board over get_player_board, get_match, research_board, or the many other match/player tools, and gives no negative guidance or explicit conditions.

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