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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on the 404 for unsupported leagues, no indication of freshness or data source, and no hint about the composite nature of the response.

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 compact sentences with the substantive scope statement front-loaded, which is the right structure. The three example utterances are slightly repetitive of each other and consume space that could have carried sibling-routing information, keeping it just short of 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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so at a high level (position, form, next games). For a read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, that is close to sufficient; only the sibling overlap and handling of unknown leagues are left unaddressed.

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 (q, team, league, country) are already documented in the schema, including the deprecation note for q and the league whitelist. The description contributes nothing about parameter semantics, 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?

The description names a specific resource (a club) and enumerates the three things returned: league position, recent form, next games. That's clearly more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings get_table and get_fixtures, which plausibly cover overlapping content, so an agent can't tell why to pick this composite over those.

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 three sample utterances ("how are Arsenal doing?", "what's Spurs' form?", "when do Birmingham play next?") imply the intended usage context, which is better than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus compare_teams, get_table or get_fixtures, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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