Get match events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key operational trait (polling-heavy, quota consumption), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, response format, or that this is a read-only operation. The quota warning is a positive but incomplete picture.

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 succinct sentences: first states the core functionality, second adds a practical quota warning. No filler, front-loaded, every word 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (key events and commentary timeline) and a usage caveat (live match polling). While it doesn't list specific event types in full, the examples and timeline scope are enough for an agent to decide. Lacks details on pagination or data shape, but acceptable for 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% for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description 'Match id'. The description adds no further semantics beyond already present, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It could have mentioned how to obtain the id (e.g., from matches endpoint), but that is not required.

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 states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('match events') with specific content examples ('goals, cards, substitutions'), and the 'commentary timeline' distinguishes it from sibling tools like lineups or xG. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 a context hint ('For live matches this is the polling-heavy endpoint') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so an agent must infer that this is the events timeline tool among the siblings.

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