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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses normalization/cleaning behavior, similarity matching, the fixture kickoff window (36 hours ago to 7 days ahead, narrowed by date), and that each result carries a 0..1 score. It omits permission/rate-limit or error behavior, but for a read-style resolver this is thorough.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the example inputs, then behavior, then routing. It is dense and each sentence adds information, though the parenthetical example lists and window rule make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the semantic core (what it matches, how, the score output, fixture timing) while the well-covered schema documents geospatial, sort, limit and radius params. Nothing critical is missing, though pagination/ranking defaults beyond the score are not discussed.

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 92%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds beyond it: it explains that date narrows the fixture window, implies year is a preference signal, and ties collection values to collection semantics. The geospatial and sort/limit params are left entirely 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?

The description frames a precise resolvable question ('Which title, channel or fixture is this name?') and states the mechanism: input names are cleaned (year, season/episode, quality tags, playlist decorations) and matched by similarity. This clearly differentiates it from sibling lookup tools like get_item or search_items by scope and intent.

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 routes the agent explicitly: 'Use screen for films and TV, channels for television channels, sports for fixtures,' and explains that matchup strings resolve to fixtures. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, but the collection-based routing is strong practical guidance.

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