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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 21-day window, nickname/alias handling across languages, the key returned field (match_id), and the multi-match ambiguity behavior. It does not cover result limits or pagination.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it finds and its time window, the optional narrowing and downstream routing, and the disambiguation rule. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded with no filler.

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 return values and does so by naming match_id and the candidate-match structure. Disambiguation behavior and the 21-day scope round it out. Minor gaps remain on ordering, result limits, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top by showing that nicknames are accepted across languages ("PSG", "Man City", "Barça") and by framing date/opponent as optional narrowing filters. It never mentions the lang parameter's effect, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope with a downstream routing hint; only missing explicit contrast with the get_upcoming_matches sibling.

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 clearly explains how to invoke it (narrow with opponent and date) and routes the agent downstream to get_match_probabilities with the returned match_id. It also gives a concrete ambiguity resolution procedure: if several teams match, ask the user which one they mean. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against get_upcoming_matches/get_team_strengths.

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