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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the credit cost of 5 and the shape of the payload (scores, teams, venue, metadata). It omits pagination/result-window behavior, which is the only notable gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the return shape, then the cheaper alternative and the cost. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still sketches them briefly. Combined with the explicit alternative and cost signal, an agent has everything needed to choose and invoke this tool over its 20 siblings.

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% and every one of the 8 parameters carries its own description and enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline here.

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') plus the filterable scope, and immediately distinguishes itself from get_schedule by naming the upcoming-only alternative. An agent can separate it from get_game_detail, get_schedule, and the stats siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('querying past or future games with filters'), explicit when-not ('upcoming-only games, prefer get_schedule'), and an explicit cost tradeoff (5 cr vs 2 cr). The routing decision is fully resolved in the description.

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