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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — every row carries an evidenceId, implying provenance-backed output — but says nothing about default season scoping or what 'recorded lines' contain. The 'in any season' claim also conflicts with the includeAllSeasons parameter's instruction to set it true ONLY for prior history, which suggests the default is not all seasons.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the call trigger — no filler. Small deduction because the 'in any season' phrase is imprecise and consumes space while creating ambiguity rather than removing it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return shape could be explained; it names evidenceId but not the other line fields, and it does not reconcile the default season scope with includeAllSeasons. Adequate to select the tool, but thin for an agent that must reason about what comes back.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and every parameter (asked, limit, season, includeAllSeasons, team_a/team_b) is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the two-team and season ideas but adds no resolving behavior, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: it returns the recorded scorecard lines for two named teams that played each other, each tagged with an evidenceId. That is enough to distinguish it from predict_matchup (a forecast) and query_match_log (single-team log). The phrase 'in any season' is slightly at odds with the title's 'Recent results' and with the includeAllSeasons flag, which blurs the scope rather than sharpening it.

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?

'Call it for the head-to-head between two teams, or before you state a fact about it' gives a clear positive trigger, including a useful grounding/verification habit. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use predict_matchup for an unplayed fixture), so the agent must infer those from sibling names.

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