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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds return structure details (scorers list, meta.source), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavior such as data freshness, ordering, or limits. This meets the minimum bar without exceeding it.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action. The Returns block is structured clearly and adds useful detail without redundancy or fluff.

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-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not stating how many scorers are included (e.g., top 10 vs. all), but this is unlikely to mislead an agent given the output 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and there are no missing parameter explanations to penalize.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('World Cup 2026 top scorers'), and the output shape is explicitly named. The tool's name and description uniquely identify it among siblings like football_get_standings and football_get_groups, leaving no ambiguity.

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 purpose is so specific that the intended usage ('when you need top scorer data') is obvious from the name and description. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to another tool, 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.