Match statistics

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: the derived vs. measured family distinction, the variability of measured coverage by tour, and the omission (not zero-filling) of absent fields. This exceeds annotation coverage and provides meaningful operational nuance.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place, packing in the two families, coverage caveat, omission policy, and plan requirement without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, annotations, and rich context, the description fully covers the essential behavioral aspects (families, coverage variability, missing fields) and the plan requirement. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% for the single parameter (match_id, already described as returned by other endpoints), the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as returning statistics for one match, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('match statistics'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (score, events, analysis, odds) by focusing on the two statistic families and their unique characteristics.

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 implies usage for retrieving match statistics, and explicitly states the ULTRA plan requirement, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not name alternative tools for different needs or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though the context is sufficient for most cases.

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