Match protocol

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup or what happens with an invalid/unresolvable match id. It does earn credit for disclosing the shape of the payload (per-player lineups, full event log including goals, 7m, suspensions, timeouts), which tells the agent to expect a large detailed response rather than a summary.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource name and its Norwegian synonym, then lists contents. Every clause contributes information; the only cost is that the enumeration is long and slightly repetitive about suspensions.

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 one fully documented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the main risk is unknown return shape — the description addresses that directly by enumerating the payload components. Missing only the read-only assurance and any note on response size or failure behavior.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema description already explains that matchId accepts either a numeric id or a profixio.com/app/lx/match/<id> URL. The tool description adds nothing about matchId, which is acceptable given the schema fully covers it — baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (match protocol/matchprotokoll) and enumerates exactly what it contains — teams, result, venue, lineups, officials, event log — which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented siblings like get_competition_matches or get_matches_by_date. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after locating a match id via get_competition_matches or get_matches_by_date, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer the retrieval workflow from the sibling names alone.

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