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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does so by disclosing what data is published per competition (probabilities, full markets, season projections, team strengths), which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding what it can retrieve. No auth or rate-limit notes, so not a 5.

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?

Verb and resource are front-loaded, and the coverage list is parenthetical rather than a separate clause, keeping it to two sentences with no padding. The enumeration of leagues is long but earns its place by defining scope precisely.

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 return content, and it does so by listing the four publication categories per competition. For a zero-required-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only output format/shape specifics are absent.

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?

There is a single optional 'lang' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about language behavior, but per the baseline rule for high coverage this is adequate at 3.

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 ('Lists the football competitions Docteur Bet models') and enumerates the actual coverage domain, so an agent immediately knows this is a catalog of supported competitions rather than match data. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_match or get_match_probabilities, which operate on individual matches.

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?

Ends with an explicit trigger: 'Call this when unsure whether a competition is covered.' That gives a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to call it, so it stops short of a 5.

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