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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping detail that results are games 'with lines on the board', but it does not explain pagination behavior, response shape, or other operational traits beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted wording, and the core resource phrase 'Games with lines on the board' is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though for a nine-parameter tool it is arguably too terse rather than richly structured.

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 nine-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives only a minimal indication of what is returned: games with lines. The schema covers filters well, and annotations cover safety, but the description does not clarify output shape, pagination behavior, or how this differs from close sibling tools.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions only league, date, and status, which does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as 'Games with lines on the board' and lists filtering dimensions (league, date, status). It is clear enough to distinguish this from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_fixture or get_board_at.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering dimensions 'by league, date or status', so an agent can infer it is for listing games with lines under those filters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward alternatives such as get_fixture, get_board_at, or get_odds.

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