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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the state change and visible side effect, but it does not mention validation of players, duplicate or overwrite behavior, permissions, or error conditions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and timing. The second sentence adds a concrete outcome without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, so the description is the only guidance. It conveys scheduling intent and a visible effect, but omits parameter meaning, return behavior, and failure or validation conditions needed for a robust agent to call it confidently.

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 compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It does not explicitly explain that player_a and player_b are the two competitors or that round is optional, even though these are inferable from the word 'match'.

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 identifies a specific action ('put a match on the calendar') with a clear temporal condition ('before it is played') and an observable consequence ('appears as a pending card in the standings output'). This helps distinguish it from sibling record_match, which would naturally be associated with played matches.

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?

'Before it is played' provides clear contextual guidance for when to schedule a match, and the pending-card effect explains how scheduled matches surface. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use record_match for completed matches', so it stops short of a 5.

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