openliga: Get match data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool returns goals, results, and location, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on potential variations, error conditions, or response format—acceptable but not exceptional.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 has no output schema, the description lists key return fields (goals, results, location), which provides a reasonable mental model of what to expect. However, it omits other potentially important fields (e.g., teams, date, referee). Still, it is sufficient for a simple match detail tool.

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. The description does not add any extra meaning to the match_id parameter beyond what is in the schema (numeric ID). It simply restates that the tool is accessed 'by its ID.' No additional validation or usage hints are provided.

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 it gets detailed data for a specific match by ID, listing goals, results, and location. It is specific about the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different endpoints (e.g., openliga_get_matches_by_matchday, openliga_get_table).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openliga_get_matches_by_matchday or openliga_get_last_match_by_team. It assumes the user knows to call this when they have a match ID, but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention prerequisites.

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