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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the fixed 14-day forward window, that kickoff times are rendered in local time, and that channel info is country-conditional.

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?

One dense sentence with the core scope and the 14-day window front-loaded before the filter list. No filler, though the single-sentence form packs a lot of clauses without visual separation.

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 does supply the shape of a result (match + local kickoff + channel) which is essential. For a 6-parameter, zero-required query tool it is close to complete; the only meaningful omission is pagination/limit behavior and default ordering.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented; the description's 'filtered by date, competition, team or country' largely restates them. It adds the useful interplay between country and the returned channel, but says nothing about the limit parameter, which is undocumented in the schema too.

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 verb and resource ('List upcoming football matches') plus the scope (next 14 days) and the returned fields (kickoff in local time, channel). It does not name its siblings watch_competition or where_to_watch, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

'optionally filtered by date, competition, team or country' implies the use cases, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over where_to_watch (channel lookup) or watch_competition (per-competition view). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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