get_match_simple

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and nondestructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying what fields are omitted (game-specific score breakdown, video links), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions, and the behavior is transparent for a lightweight read endpoint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear details on what is omitted and how it compares to get_match. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description fully explains what the tool returns and what it omits. It is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to use this tool over the full get_match tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter match_key, which includes a detailed description of format and examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves a single match with reduced fields, listing specific included fields (alliances, scores, winning alliance, timing) and explicitly omits game-specific score breakdown and video links. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_match by stating 'Lighter than get_match', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage when lighter data is needed by stating 'Lighter than get_match', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other match-related tools like get_match_zebra or get_event_matches_simple. However, the contrast with get_match is clear enough for an informed agent.

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