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

Annotations cover read-only safety, and the description adds valuable non-obvious context: it renders cards, does not place bets, open sportsbooks, show ads, or return affiliate links. It does not disclose rate limits or ordering, but goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns; the negative list is slightly verbose but earns its place given the gambling context. Structured and readable.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies return fields, behavioral constraints, and rendering context. It omits result ordering and empty-state behavior, but is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds returned field names and confirms football/cricket scope, but does not clarify limit defaults, league slug format, or sport enum semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Returns) and resource (upcoming match tips), enumerates returned fields, and implicitly distinguishes from list_recent_results (upcoming vs past) and get_match_tip (list vs single). Scope is clear without opening schemas.

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?

Implies usage for upcoming football/cricket tips and chat card rendering, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_match_tip or list_recent_results. No exclusions or routing guidance are given.

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