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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses authorization requirements (今日数据需授权), the default-deny posture for unauthorized callers, and the free-tier data window, plus the full status enum including rate_limited, silent, and no_coverage. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Uses an Args/Returns structure with the core purpose front-loaded in one sentence. The Returns list is slightly padded but every item (auth, silence, rate limit) is load-bearing for correct invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers that gap by enumerating the possible status values and the authorization behavior behind them. Combined with the param documentation, an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly; only sibling differentiation and result shape details are thin.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it fully does: it documents both params, gives the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), states team is fuzzy-matched, and resolves the interaction (二选一; match_date 优先). Nothing about the params is left to the schema.

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 (查第一层赛事数据) and enumerates what is returned (全场/半场/让球三套推荐、圆整自算概率、竞彩赔率), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_match_review, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Conveys real usage context via the tier constraint (免费层只提供昨日竞彩日) and the mutual-exclusivity rule for the two args. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the alternative get_match_review, so routing remains implied rather than stated.

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