Get lineups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output content and a paid plan requirement, but does not disclose error handling, read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. The payment note is useful but limited.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core output ('Starting XI, bench and tactical formation') and immediately notes the payment constraint. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with one parameter, but it lacks essential context about how this tool fits with siblings (e.g., when to use lineups vs. events vs. xG). It also does not describe the response structure or any limitations. The absence of usage guidance makes it incomplete for correct tool selection.

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% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Match id'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the Starting XI, bench, and tactical formation for one match, which is specific and informative. It mentions 'for one match' which helps distinguish it from list-type tools like matches, but does not explicitly contrast with other match-specific siblings like match_events or match_xg.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a payment requirement, which is a constraint but not a usage directive. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools such as match_events or match_xg.

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