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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the matching mechanism (cleaning of year, season/episode, quality tags, playlist decorations, then similarity match), the fixture time window (36 hours back to 7 days ahead), and that each result carries a 0..1 score. Those are substantive behavioral traits not present in the annotations.

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-loads the core question and the accepted input forms, then layers fixture behavior and scoring. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical example lists are slightly heavy but functional.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers input forms, resolution behavior, time bounds, and a note on the score field, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Return shape beyond the score (fields, ordering tie-breaks) is not described, leaving a small gap for a 12-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it explains that a matchup form of q resolves to a fixture and that date narrows the fixture window, and it ties collection values to content types. Minor added value over the schema's own descriptions, hence not a 5.

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+resource ("Which title, channel or fixture is this name?") and shows exactly what inputs it accepts with three concrete name examples. It is clearly distinguishable from a generic search tool because it describes fuzzy name-to-item matching rather than keyword search.

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?

Gives explicit routing advice: "Use screen for films and TV, channels for television channels, sports for fixtures," which maps input types to the correct collection. It does not name an alternative sibling tool or say when NOT to use it (e.g. versus nichedb_search_items), leaving that inference to the agent.

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