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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add content context, which it does: it defines the per-fact payload (type, importance, text), the summary-paragraph aggregation, the allowed languages, and a scope limit ('Facts only, no predictions'). It stops short of stating fact counts, truncation, or fallback behavior when no facts exist.

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 payload shape and ordering promise are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the fact taxonomy and the sibling comparison. It is dense and largely waste-free, though the fragmentary, semicolon-chained phrasing takes a second read 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so well — enumerating fact fields, the summary paragraph, and the 'no predictions' boundary. What remains thin is edge-case behavior (empty results, volume of facts), which is minor for a read-only insights 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the de/es/it/fr language set and the match/team/player kinds. The description reinforces the language constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 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?

States a specific resource (ready fact sentences for a match or team) and its ordering (most important first), then enumerates the fact categories it covers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_match_briefing and get_team_briefing by noting it returns the same facts 'without the data blocks', so an agent can tell the siblings apart without opening a 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?

Gives clear selecting conditions: use for a match or team, use get_league_facts for a league (in the kind param), and pick this over the briefing tools when the narrative data blocks aren't wanted. It doesn't spell out exclusions for other siblings like get_summary or get_h2h, so the routing is strong but not exhaustive.

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