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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by detailing what the result contains and clarifying the win/draw counts are by team not venue, which is genuine behavioral context.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core resource and then the returned fields. It is somewhat long but every clause describes a distinct output element, so it largely earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully explained, and the description plus schema cover the call adequately for a read-only lookup. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other match tools.

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 schema already documents team_a, team_b, and the conditional sport parameter. The description adds no formatting, syntax, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific resource (past meetings of two teams in the same sport) and enumerates exactly what it returns: meeting counts, per-team wins and draws, total goals, last 10 results, next meeting. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like match_details or standings.

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?

Usage is implied by the described output (comparing two teams requires two team identifiers), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative to siblings such as match_details. The agent must infer the routing.

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