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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the return (links, labels, citations, timestamps), but says nothing about pagination or result limits despite page/limit parameters.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return payload. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search, annotations plus the return-field summary cover the essentials, but the description omits pagination semantics (page/limit interplay, max 20 results) and any hint of when to prefer `fetch` over `search`. Adequate but incomplete.

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 only 25% – just the `club` parameter is documented – so the description must compensate and does not. It alludes to keyword querying but gives no meaning for club, page, or limit beyond what the bare schema types imply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search public football stories) plus the return payload (canonical links, reporting labels, citations, timestamps). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `fetch`, which an agent would need to pick between.

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 'by keywords' hints at the intended input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or indication of how this differs from `fetch` or `list_clubs`. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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