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). The description adds genuinely new domain behavior: points include official deductions and deducted clubs carry a points_deducted field, which is not derivable from annotations and is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Very tight: purpose and example triggers come first, with the points-deduction caveat last. The 'Form Guide.' fragment mildly restates the title, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a full 5.

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?

For a zero-required-param, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: intent, trigger examples, and the one non-obvious return-value quirk (points_deducted). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents accepted league names, variants, the 404 behavior and the default. The description's league references (Championship, La Liga) merely echo schema values, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, 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?

States the resource unambiguously ('League table') and reinforces it with two natural-language user queries ('show me the Championship table', 'who is top of La Liga?'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like formguide_get_fixtures, formguide_get_results and formguide_get_team without needing to name them.

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 conveyed through concrete example phrasings that map directly to the tool's intent, giving an agent a clear trigger match. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or naming an alternative sibling for adjacent needs, so it falls just 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.