get_match_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns result and goals, implying read-only behavior. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, but for a simple data retrieval tool, this is sufficiently transparent.

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, clear sentence of 15 words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and directly conveys the purpose without extraneous information. 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core functionality and distinguishes the tool from siblings. However, it lacks guidance on error handling or valid team names, which would improve completeness.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description only adds that parameters are team names, without specifying format (e.g., full name, code) or any constraints. This minimal addition does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves the result and goals for a specific World Cup match identified by two teams. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_all_results (all matches) and get_standings (standings) by focusing on a single match.

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 use when you need a result for a specific pair of teams, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings like get_all_results or get_todays_matches. The usage context is inferred but not directly stated.

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