Match detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's added value is data-availability context: lineups appear only near kick-off, Varzesh3 lacks per-match possession/shot stats, and sport changes the returned shape (quarter points, set scores). It does not discuss error behavior for invalid ids, so it falls slightly short of the top mark.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its payload before moving to usage and sport-specific caveats, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense and list-heavy, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly across football, basketball and volleyball, plus the events decoding (own goals, second yellows, VAR, shoot-outs). An agent has enough to call it and to predict the response shape.

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%, so the parameters are already documented; the description still adds meaning by explaining that sport alters the returned data per discipline and that prediction=true appends the fans' poll with shares expressed as percentages. This goes beyond the schema, which only says 'add the fans' prediction poll'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one match') and immediately enumerates the returned content: score, status, goals, cards, penalties, substitutions, lineups, referee, stadium, video, next matches. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list-scoped siblings by noting it needs a match id that came from v3_scores or a list tool.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use it after v3_scores or a list tool gave you a match id') and routes a specific need elsewhere ('no per-match possession or shot statistics ... season averages per team: v3_league_stats'). It also warns that lineups only appear close to kick-off, which tells the agent when the tool cannot satisfy a request.

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