get_match_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds useful content disclosure (what sections come back), but omits behaviorally relevant facts: whether a report exists for an unplayed fixture, what precedence applies when multiple selector params are passed, and what happens with no arguments.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the contents enumerated immediately after the verb; nothing is buried. Minor padding from marketing-flavored words ('comprehensive', 'official', 'Touchline Wire'), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of naming the returned sections, and it does so reasonably well. However, for a tool with three optional selectors and no required parameters, it leaves the selection semantics and the pre/post-match availability condition unexplained, which is the missing piece an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters carries its own explanation with examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — notably it does not clarify the mutual exclusivity or precedence of 'club', 'latest', and 'fixture_id', which is the main semantic ambiguity here.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('tactical match reports') and enumerates the payload: lineups, event timeline, xG, possession, forecast accuracy. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never contrasts itself with the adjacent get_match_preview or get_all_lineups siblings, so the agent must infer that this is the post-match, full-detail variant.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says this is for completed matches rather than upcoming ones, nothing distinguishes it from get_match_preview, and nothing explains how to choose among the mutually exclusive 'club', 'latest', and 'fixture_id' selectors. With zero required parameters, the agent is left to guess what happens if it supplies none or several.

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