openliga_get_match_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists included data (goals, results, location) but does not detail other possible return fields, error behavior (e.g., invalid match ID), or response format. It is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key data included. Every word adds value, with no wasted text.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns and the input required. It could mention additional typical match data (e.g., teams, date) but 'detailed data' implies completeness. The score is slightly reduced for vagueness.

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% with the match_id parameter described as 'The numeric match ID'. The description adds 'by its ID', which is redundant. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed data for a specific match', and the identifying parameter 'by its ID'. It also lists example data fields (goals, results, location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return lists of matches, making the tool's purpose 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openliga_get_matches_by_matchday or openliga_get_last_match_by_team. While the context implies that this is for fetching a single match with a known ID, the description fails to state this or exclude scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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