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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only/idempotent nature. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining the neutral-venue/home-advantage handling and noting that the outputs are estimates via meta.estimated: true. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and clearly separated into Args and Returns. It loses a point because its Args section essentially duplicates the schema descriptions rather than adding new guidance.

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 simple three-parameter, read-only model with a full input schema and output schema, nothing essential is missing: required team codes, the neutral default, the return shape, and the estimated flag are all present.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats those same descriptions (team codes, neutral flag) but adds no extra meaning such as accepted code formats, validation rules, or how coordinates are resolved.

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 opening line names a specific action ('Estimate') and resource ('a match's expected goals and win/draw/loss probabilities'), matching the tool name. It is clear, but it does not explicitly position itself against the overlapping sibling football_match_predictor.

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 description implies its use case: any time an agent needs pre-match expected goals and probabilities. It gives the World Cup venue default as context, but it never states when to pick this tool instead of football_match_predictor or the simulator siblings.

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