Get derived match context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns derived signals (form, head-to-head) but does not mention read-only nature, potential null response for invalid IDs, data freshness, or any other behavioral caveats. For a simple one-parameter retrieval, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Derived context for one match') and follows with the key contents. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the returned data consists of (form, head-to-head, pre-computed signals). It does not specify exact fields or error behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of the description, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 the parameter 'id' already described as 'Match id'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no extra syntax, format, or domain context added.

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 a verb ('Get') and a resource ('match context'), and specifies the content ('form, head-to-head and related pre-computed signals'), which separates it from sibling tools that focus on lineups, events, xG, or odds. It is not a tautology and gives enough specificity for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 the tool is for a single match's derived statistics but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like match_lineups or match_xg. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling names.

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