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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the cost (5 credits) and the comparative cost of the alternative, which affects tool selection. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination behavior, but this is a filtered-read tool where that gap is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste: purpose, return shape, routing alternative plus its cost, and own cost. The routing guidance is front-loaded where an agent will see it before committing to the call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still hints at the payload (scores, teams, venue, metadata). Combined with full schema coverage and clear routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with all 8 parameters documented in the schema including enum meanings and date formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond pointing at 'filters' generically, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('querying past or future games with filters') and enumerates what comes back (scores, teams, venue, game metadata). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_schedule by scope (past/future vs upcoming-only).

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when querying past or future games with filters') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('For upcoming-only games, prefer get_schedule (2 cr) instead'). The when-to-use and when-to-prefer-something-else are both spelled out.

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