get_live_team_match

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

No annotations are present, so the description must communicate behavioral traits itself. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens for invalid match IDs, whether only live matches are accessible, or any authentication/rate-limit implications). This is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating what the tool does, making it concise and well-structured for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient but still leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'details' includes, nor how this tool differs from sibling tools like get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board, which the agent may need to know to select 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?

The only parameter (matchId) is fully described in the input schema with type, description, and exclusivity constraint. Schema description coverage is 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond identifying matchId in the tool's context.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('details and players for a Chess.com Live team match'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools at a basic level via 'Live team match', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling tool such as get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board would be more appropriate.

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