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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one piece of behavioral context beyond the schema — what the `url` value points to and that it aggregates sellers and prices — but it is introduced without framing, and no pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences with the scope stated first, no filler or repetition. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, since `url` appears with no cue that it is a response field rather than an input.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter read tool and the schema carries the input burden well. However, with no output schema, the description covers only one return field (`url`) and leaves the rest of the response shape — what else a match record contains, how prices and the currency parameter interact in the output — unexplained.

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 venue, limit (default 20, max 50), and currency fallback rules are fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters; the `url` sentence refers to a return field, not an input.

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 and scope: upcoming matches filtered to a single stadium. That scoping distinguishes it implicitly from team_next_fixtures and find_matches_near, though it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'at one stadium' — an agent can infer this is the venue-centric lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_matches, find_matches_near, or team_next_fixtures, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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