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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the query matches names in any language, requires at least 2 characters, and each result returns a URL usable by other tools.

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 short sentences and every one earns its place: what it finds, what it returns and how to chain it, and the sports-only bound. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers input constraints, result shape (URL per match) and scope. Only gap is no explicit guidance on sibling selection among the six related 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 documents query, limit and types with examples and enum values. The description's 'at least 2 characters' and 'by name' largely restate the schema's minLength and query description, adding little beyond it.

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 (Find) and the three resource kinds (competitions, teams, players) plus scope (by name). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like team, match_details, or standings, which operate on IDs/URLs already resolved rather than on free-text names.

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?

Tells the agent how this fits the workflow: results carry betrend.im URLs that feed 'the other tools', and it is scoped to sports only. That is clear routing context, though it stops short of naming which sibling to call for non-name lookups or when to skip search entirely.

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