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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a confidence score, alternatives, a decision block with safe_to_proceed and next_action, and the live clock format. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section, front-loading the core purpose. It is slightly verbose in the returns paragraph but every sentence adds useful information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the query format, filters, return fields, and downstream usage. It doesn't explain edge cases like ambiguous matches in detail, but the decision block mention covers ambiguity handling.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains query with examples, sport as an optional filter with allowed values, and date as a UTC disambiguator. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('football/basketball fixture by natural-language name'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing natural-language lookup and returning a best-matching event. It clearly differentiates from tools like list_events or list_today_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?

The description gives concrete usage context: natural-language query, optional sport/date filters, and explicitly says to use the returned event_id with get_match_odds / compare_lines. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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