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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only calculation with no apparent side effects, but it does not explain how 'recent' is defined, how the normalized form score is computed, or any data-source behavior.

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 no filler or redundancy. The core action and target are immediately clear, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits usage guidance and leaves two of three parameters unexplained. For a tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this is too thin for an agent to confidently call it with the right optional arguments.

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 parameter meaning. It clarifies that the 'team' parameter refers to the team whose form is being calculated, but it provides no meaning or context for the optional 'competition' or 'number_of_matches' 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource (team form), and lists the outputs: recent results, goals, and a normalized form score. It is distinct from the sibling prediction/analysis tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_match or predict_match. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided; the usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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