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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world status, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context by defining the three statuses (upcoming, pending with reading shown not yet locked, finished), but does not discuss pagination, ordering, or other operational traits.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the resource and day scope. It is a verbless fragment, which slightly reduces readability, but nothing is extraneous.

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 read-only list tool with fully covered parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema it only hints at return content via 'their status' and omits ordering, result shape, or relationship to the get_* detail siblings.

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 (tz, date, lang, league) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 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 states a specific verb-resource pair implicitly (listing matches on one calendar day) and clarifies the three possible statuses. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_match_analysis or get_match_context.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Matches on one calendar day' – an agent can infer this is the listing entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling get_match_analysis for deeper detail.

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