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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by noting xG is 'if available' and highlighting the matchId requirement, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, potential errors, or return format.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a critical prerequisite in a highlighted [CRITICAL] tag, both front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description effectively covers what it does, what metrics it returns, and the required input source. It is sufficiently detailed for agent use, though a brief mention of alternatives would improve it further.

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?

The schema already covers the parameter fully, but the description adds value by specifying where the matchId comes from (getEvents or getLiveEvents). This extra context helps the agent know how to obtain a valid value.

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 the tool retrieves comprehensive statistical analysis and gives specific metrics (pass accuracy, tackle rates, xG). The word 'detailed' in the tool name and 'highly comprehensive' in the description help differentiate it from the sibling get_match_stats, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides an important prerequisite: a valid matchId from getEvents or getLiveEvents. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., get_match_stats) or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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