Match detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying what data is included and that market prices are on PRO and model analysis on ULTRA, informing the agent about tier-dependent response content without contradicting annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists all key included fields. It is concise and well-structured with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool, the description is complete: it covers all included fields, tier-dependent extras, and the output schema exists to handle return structure. The context signals indicate low complexity, and the description adequately covers it.

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 100%, with match_id fully documented (including provenance from other match-listing tools). The description adds only 'by id', which is redundant but harmless. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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's function: 'Full detail for one match by id' and lists specific content (players, score, surface, round, status). This differentiates it from siblings like get_match_score (score only) and get_match_analysis (analysis only), with the added mention of market prices and model analysis.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: to fetch full details of a single match by id. The parameter description adds guidance on where the id comes from (get_live_matches, get_upcoming_matches, get_recent_results). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an AI agent to select this over more specialized tools.

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