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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-date behavior, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or how a range interacts with limit/offset, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core scope front-loaded and the default behavior appended. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 10-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (matches = fixtures and results), the date scoping, and the default. It omits paging/language behavior, which the schema handles, so it is largely complete for an agent to call 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%, so every parameter (date, date_from/date_to, league_id vs league_name, limit, offset, lang) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the date-range and league concepts but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (matches, explicitly fixtures and results) and the retrieval axis (by day or date range, optionally of one league). It is clearly distinct from get_match_details or get_standings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_live_matches.

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?

It supplies one useful usage rule — omit the date to get today's matches — which is implied guidance for the default case. It does not state when to prefer this over get_live_matches for in-progress games, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only partially covered.

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