Charting: one match, every stat family

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: results are 'exactly as charted' including per-set splits, and data coverage is described as mostly lacking live-table counterparts. This goes beyond the annotation baselines to clarify the raw nature and scope of the data.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then clarify the id space and plan requirement. No redundancy or filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With a single parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, the data scope, and access constraints. It covers purpose, id-space nuance, and plan requirement, making it complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 reinforces that charting_match_id is its own id space and adds a date range (1960–2026), but the schema already states 'not a match_id'. No significant additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves every Match Charting Project stat family for a single charted match, for both players, with per-set splits. It also distinguishes from live-table matches by noting charting ids are their own id space, which separates it from sibling tools like get_match and get_match_statistics.

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 strong contextual guidance: charting ids are a separate id space (1960–2026) and mostly have no live-table counterpart, implying use for charting data rather than live matches. It also notes the ULTRA plan requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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