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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail via example query fragments and the cross-tool workflow hint, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether coverage is complete.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded before the optional filter and the follow-on tip.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description says enough: what is listed, what is returned (ids), how to filter, and what to do with the id. Minor gaps are pagination and result ordering.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented. The description adds genuine value with concrete fragment examples, but adds no syntax or matching rules beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List covered leagues and cups') and says what is returned ('with their ids'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_league and the find_players/find_teams lookups, though it does not name them.

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?

Explains the filtering condition ('Optionally filter by a name or country fragment') and gives the workflow rationale: 'Use the id with the other tools', which tells the agent this is a discovery step feeding the get_* siblings. No explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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