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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the return contents, which is valuable since no output schema exists, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior, name-resolution ambiguity, or the output-formatting effects of country.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns followed by concrete user-intent examples. Nothing is wasted and the shape is immediately scannable.

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 read-only lookup with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned fields and shows triggering phrases. It would be complete if it flagged disambiguation (league) or the 404 path, but those live in the schema.

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 all four parameters (including q/team duplication, league enum-ish list, and country formatting behavior) are already documented at a high standard. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 a specific resource (a club) and the three data elements returned (league position, recent form, next games), which implicitly separates it from get_table, get_fixtures and get_results. It does not name or explicitly contrast any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The quoted example requests ("how are Arsenal doing?", "when do Birmingham play next?") map real user intents onto this tool, which is genuinely useful triage guidance. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to compare_teams/get_table for overlapping requests, so it stops 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.