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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a composite tool, parallel-safe, with an upstream cost of 4–8, and it returns pre-match briefing content. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is well structured with a dense summary line, clear usage bullets, explicit exclusions, and a compact example. Every section adds decision-relevant information without repetition 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with a high-coverage schema, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, how it compares to siblings, and a realistic invocation example. Nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example invocation and clarifies the composite relationship between sides, H2H, and recent form, but it does not substantially elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with 'COMPOSITE pre-match briefing' and enumerates the content: sides, roster/form snippets, H2H stub, event context. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly labeling this as pre-match and directing completed matches to match_summary and live matches to match_details.

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 description provides explicit 'When to use' bullets, a 'Prefer over' note, a 'Prefer match_summary when...' instruction, and a 'Do not use when' exclusion. This gives an agent unambiguous decision criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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