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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does: the mutual-exclusion rule on city/country is not expressed anywhere in the schema, and the meaning of `url` (the match page listing every seller and price) is genuinely new information.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, every clause adding distinct information (scope, exclusivity constraint, filter set, url meaning). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 10 parameters, a nested maxPrice object and no output schema, the description covers the routing constraint and the key returned fields (cheapest price, url). It stops short of describing the rest of the response shape or pagination/limit behavior, though the schema supplies the defaults.

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 100%, including defaults, ranges, enum meanings and the maxPrice comparison rules, so the schema carries nearly all parameter semantics. The description only adds the city/country exclusivity constraint and a high-level list of available filters, which the schema already documents in detail.

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-like resource ('Upcoming football matches') plus scope (city or country, between two dates) and the payload highlight (cheapest ticket price we hold). This implicitly separates it from find_matches_near (proximity-based) and team_next_fixtures, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The rule 'accepts exactly one of city or country' gives a concrete usage constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_matches_near, team_next_fixtures or venue_upcoming_matches. The agent must infer routing from the location wording alone.

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