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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Bekräftad' signals only officially confirmed lineups are returned, and the caveat about possibly being the most recently played match discloses a data-freshness limitation the agent could not infer from the schema or 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core fact (confirmed lineup plus match/date) is front-loaded. Nothing to trim, though the terseness is arguably part of the coverage gap rather than pure efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so only partially ('med match och datum') and says nothing about how many players, formation, or substitution data. For a 2-required-parameter lookup with zero schema documentation, it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 must compensate for both parameters and does not. 'league' is an enum and self-explanatory, but 'team_id' is a bare integer with no explanation of which ID system it expects. Nothing in the description clarifies either parameter.

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 resource (confirmed starting eleven) plus the accompanying data (match and date). No sibling tool overlaps (offers, standings, match search), so it is distinguishable, though the verb is only implied via the title rather than in the sentence itself.

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 only guidance is the caveat 'Kan vara den senast spelade matchens elva', which hints at which match the lineup comes from but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what happens when no confirmed lineup exists.

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