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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key trait: the tool returns evidence/stats and deliberately omits a prediction. However, it does not mention whether any side effects occur, whether team resolution may fail, or how the evidence is presented beyond what the output schema already covers. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core action, the object, and the key exclusion ('without a prediction') clearly. Every word 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and a key exclusion, and the output schema likely covers return structure. However, it does not address how to specify teams (aliases, required format), when competition should be provided, or how this tool relates to get_team_form for team statistics. For a tool with no annotations, the description leaves several contextual gaps.

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%, with only 'competition' documented. The tool description does not clarify home_team and away_team formats, how teams are resolved, or what 'evidence' means in relation to these parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the schema itself is thin for the two required parameters.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the evidence and team statistics used by the prediction model'), and explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do ('without a prediction'). This clearly distinguishes it from predict_match and predict_matches, which produce predictions, and orients the agent to the tool's analytical role.

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 phrase 'without a prediction' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs the model's underlying evidence and stats, not a forecast. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with prediction-generating siblings is strong enough to guide selection.

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