get_live_team_match

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose return format, potential errors, rate limits, or whether the match must be currently live. The description is too thin to establish behavioral expectations.

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 sentence with no structure, examples, or additional context. While concise, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, resembling a placeholder rather than a deliberate, informative definition.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits essential information: what a 'live team match' entails, how match_id is structured, and what the response will contain. The definition is inadequate for an agent to call this tool 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 0%, and the description does not mention match_id at all. The schema only provides type and range constraints, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of what match_id represents or how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'live team match' on Chess.com, which is clear about the primary action. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board, leaving the agent to infer the difference based on the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. No context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the match must be ongoing) or alternatives is provided, so the agent has no basis for selection.

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