get_team_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate-limit implications, return behavior, or anything about the retrieved match data.

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 one-sentence description is genuinely concise and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified rather than elegantly compact, so it only earns a middle score.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more context than it does. It names the resource but leaves the agent without enough information about match_id origin, return shape, or how this differs from get_team_match_board and get_live_team_match.

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 completely ignores the required match_id parameter. It adds no meaning about what match_id represents, where to obtain it, or how it should be formatted.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a daily team match on Chess.com'), and 'daily' helps distinguish it from the live-team-match sibling. It is not a 5 because it doesn't differentiate from board-level siblings or clarify that it returns match details rather than boards.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or explicit alternatives. The sibling names hint at a daily-vs-live distinction, but that distinction is not stated in the tool's own description.

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