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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: results are restricted to upcoming matches, text is matched against team names, and paging continues via next_offset — the latter matters because there is no output schema to reveal that field.

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?

Three terse sentences with the scope front-loaded and the pagination hint last, no filler. The style is telegraphic fragments, which is efficient but slightly cryptic for a non-Swedish reader.

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 six undocumented parameters, no output schema and no per-parameter annotation, the definition should explain the date range filters, the limit cap and the league values. Instead it covers only the free-text search and paging, leaving an agent unable to use the filters correctly.

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% across six parameters. The description explains only query (searches home/away team names) and offset (next page via next_offset); from, to, limit (max 30) and the league enum are left entirely undocumented, so four of six parameters carry no semantics anywhere.

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 the resource and scope concretely: upcoming matches together with their listed offers, and that free text matches home and away team names. That is a specific verb+resource, and the mention of 'erbjudanden' hints at the boundary with get_offers, though the sibling is never named or routed to 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 word 'Kommande' implies the tool should be used for upcoming fixtures rather than historical results, and the last sentence gives explicit pagination guidance with next_offset. However, there is no statement of when to use this instead of get_offers, get_lineup or get_standings, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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