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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an important behavioral trait beyond the annotations: with no team or league it defaults to the Premier League. It does not describe return shape, freshness/latency, or the 404 behavior for unknown leagues.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability front-loaded, followed by examples. The example queries take space but earn it by anchoring intent matching. 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 carries the burden of telling the agent what to expect, and it does so adequately for a read-only lookup tool. The only gap is the interaction between n and the league mode, but for a simple, well-annotated tool this is close to complete.

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 all three parameters including the 1-20 range and valid league names. The description only reinforces defaults (Premier League fallback); it does not clarify whether n applies when a league (last round) is requested, which is a residual semantic gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('Latest results for a club, or the last round of a league'), which tells an agent exactly what is returned. It implicitly separates itself from get_fixtures (upcoming) and get_table (standings), but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 concrete example intents ('how did Chelsea get on?', 'what were the Serie A results?'), so an agent can map a user question to this tool with confidence. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to siblings for adjacent needs.

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