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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ranking, result caps, whether partial/fuzzy matches are returned, or what a match actually contains. It also leaves the unusual notification_message parameter completely unexplained, which for a read-only search is a surprising part of the contract.

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 and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavior detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what comes back (entity IDs, names, types) so the agent can chain into get_team or get_player. The schema covers parameter meaning, but the description is otherwise too thin to fully ground correct use.

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 100%, so each parameter (including country and language filters and the notification_message fallback text) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the q parameter's meaning and adds nothing about filter interaction or matching semantics.

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 (search) and enumerates the resource types searched (teams, players, competitions) plus the search key (name). This is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_team, get_player, or list_competitions, which cover overlapping entities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this lookup-by-name tool versus the many ID-based siblings (get_team, get_player, get_match) or resolve_vs_query and list_competitions. The agent is left to infer the routing, including whether the returned results feed those other tools.

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