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 still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the output is 'facts only, no predictions', content varies by sport (soccer-only injuries/lineups/story), and responses can be localized per language. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or behavior for unknown/invalid match_ids.

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-loaded with the core deliverable, then constraints and routing, and every sentence carries information. The middle content list is dense and slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does so explicitly, including sport-dependent differences and the post-match 'story' fields, plus the multilingual sentence form. An agent knows what it will get and how to ask for Markdown instead of JSON.

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 lang, sport, format and match_id are already documented in the schema (including the de/es/it/fr values and the get_matches provenance of match_id). The description only echoes the language set and match scope, adding no syntax or constraint information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Ready briefing for one match') and then enumerates exactly what the payload contains (form, streaks, home/away records, H2H, table gaps, stakes, schedule, plus soccer injuries/lineups/post-match story). That content inventory cleanly separates it from siblings like get_match, get_match_details and get_team_briefing without needing to name them.

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?

'Prefer this for "tell me about this match"' gives an explicit selection cue against the other match tools. It lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use clause (e.g., prefer get_match_details when you want raw per-event data), so it stops short of a 5.

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