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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful context about output scope by specifying the returned categories and the 'stats only, not betting advice' boundary.

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 front-load the purpose, then give an example and scope. Every sentence earns its place 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 sufficiently enumerates what the tool returns and limits it to stats-only guidance. Parameters and safety attributes are fully covered by the rich schema and annotations, leaving no critical gap for invocation.

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%, with documented home, away, legacy aliases team1/team2, and optional country. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clear two-club comparison and enumerates the returned stats: positions, form, goals, this season's meeting, and next fixture date. It is distinguishable from single-team and fixture-list siblings by its side-by-side pre-match focus, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a direct example question ('Arsenal v Leeds, how do they compare?') that clarifies the intended use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives such as get_team or get_fixtures.

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