get_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds detail about the data returned (alliance compositions, scores, breakdown, times, video links) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what is implied by a read operation. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose and key return fields, then mention alternatives. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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 lists the major return fields (alliance compositions, scores, breakdown, times, video) which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It is sufficiently detailed for a retrieval tool, though it could mention pagination or rate limits if applicable (but likely not needed).

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 the parameter 'match_key' is already well-documented in the schema with format and examples. The description repeats the match key format briefly but does not add significant new meaning 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 action ('Retrieve the full record') and the resource ('single match by match key'), and lists the specific data fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_match_simple and get_match_zebra.

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 explicitly mentions alternatives: 'For a lighter payload see get_match_simple. For Zebra MotionWorks robot tracking telemetry see get_match_zebra.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus others.

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