get_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the tool returns data including alliances, scores, and EPA predictions, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't discuss any prerequisites, rate limits, or the possibility of missing data for matches without predictions.

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 that is clear and direct. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient.

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 description covers the main purpose and example outputs, but for a tool with no output schema, more detail about the return structure would be helpful. Given the low complexity (1 param), it is minimally complete.

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% with one required parameter 'match' described as a match key. The description adds the example '2024flor_qm20' which clarifies the format. This is adequate but does not add much beyond the schema.

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 statistical data for a specific match, listing examples like alliances, scores, and EPA predictions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_matches (which likely returns a list of matches) and get_team_match (which focuses on a team's perspective).

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 the tool is used to get details for a specific match, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_team_match or get_matches. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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