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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned probability fields and noting that the result with a hit flag is available only after the match has finished.

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 a single dense but well-structured sentence that front-loads the core probabilities before listing secondary fields. Every item listed maps to useful return information and there is no filler.

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 and simple read-only annotations, the description supplies the return content an agent needs: model probabilities, likely outcome, confidence, favourite, lock time, and final result flag. It is complete enough for correct invocation of this retrieval tool.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning, syntax, or constraints for match_id or lang beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource and the data returned: home/draw/away probabilities, most likely outcome, confidence, favourite, locked time, and final result flag. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like get_match_context or list_matches, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_match_context or list_matches. It hints that result data is available once a match has finished, but does not state when or why an agent should choose this tool.

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