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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the matches are 'past,' distinguishing them from live-match siblings, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, limits, or competition scope.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing omits a clear verb and necessary detail.

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 two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It implies historical matches but does not explain input ID semantics or what the returned match data includes.

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%, so the description must clarify the two required parameters. It only says there are 'two teams'; it does not explain that team1_id and team2_id are integer IDs, where to obtain them, or how ordering affects the result.

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 phrase 'Past matches between two teams' states the data resource and scope, while the tool name supplies the retrieval verb. It implicitly distinguishes paired-team history from broader sibling tools like get_matches, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent can infer it is for comparing two teams, but the description does not say when to prefer it over get_matches or get_match.

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