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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, yet the description adds real operational context: each optional section costs one extra request and stats/lineups may be silently unavailable for less-covered competitions. That is exactly the kind of pre-call behavior an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first defines the core return, the second handles optional extensions and their cost/availability limit. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the sections returned. Minor gap: it doesn't say what the response looks like structurally or whether events are inlined versus separate, but for a two-parameter read tool it is essentially sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Extra sections' by explaining that each include value triggers an additional request and is not universally available. It also contextualizes match_id via the sibling reference 'from get_matches'.

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+resource (one match) and enumerates the payload (teams, score, venue, coaches, events), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. 'One match' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural get_matches sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 inclusion of stats/lineups is framed as optional extras, which is implied usage guidance, and the availability caveat ('only for competitions covered in detail') tells the agent when those extras will be empty. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, e.g. versus get_matches or get_head_to_head.

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