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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating outputs include outcome probabilities and that meta.estimated is true, making clear the result is a model estimate rather than an actual match result.

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 well-structured: a front-loaded one-line purpose followed by concise Args and Returns sections. It contains no filler, and the structure makes the tool's inputs and outputs easy to scan.

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 3-parameter tool with high schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly: required params, the optional neutral flag, and the return fields. A minor gap is the lack of a team-code example or explicit call scenario, but nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions rather than adding new meaning; it does not clarify what valid team codes look like or give examples.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Predict a single match: most likely scoreline + outcome probabilities.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like football_simulate_group, football_simulate_bracket, and football_xg_model by focusing on a single match and its concrete output.

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 phrase 'single match' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not say, for example, to use football_xg_model for expected-goal analysis or football_simulate_group for multiple matches.

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