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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the precedence resolution between format and ageGroup, the default style/format applied when inputs are absent, and the fact that the response includes alternatives and coaching notes. No return format or determinism detail beyond that.

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 and zero waste. The what-is-it clause comes first, the resolution rule and default follow immediately, and every phrase carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still mentions alternatives and coaching notes. All three optional parameters are addressed at least indirectly (format-age mapping, style default, age as a string example). Only the style enum values remain semantically unexplained.

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 only 33% (only ageGroup is documented), so the description has to carry the load, and it does: it maps 7v7/9v9/11v11 to U8-U10, U11-U12, and U13+, and it establishes the precedence of format over ageGroup plus the 'balanced' default that gives meaning to the style enum. It does not explain the attacking/defensive style options themselves.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it selects a formation and enumerates the supported playing formats (7v7, 9v9, 11v11) with age bands, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It also names the deliverables (alternatives plus coaching notes). It never mentions the sibling tools, so there is no explicit differentiation, though the resource itself is distinct from playing-time or lineup tooling.

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?

It supplies concrete selection rules: explicit format takes precedence over age, and it falls back to a balanced 7v7 when nothing is given. That is clear usage context for a tool with all-optional parameters. It stops short of stating when not to use it or when a sibling tool is the better fit.

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