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

Annotations already declare readOnly/closed-world/non-destructive, so the description's extra context is the value: fixtures cover only ingested data, score values follow the source's convention rather than a normalized one, and pagination is a fixed snapshot refreshed every eight minutes. Those provenance and staleness traits are exactly the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from the schema and materially affect interpretation of results.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then ID sourcing, filtering, score semantics, and freshness. Nothing is padded, though the terse telegraphic phrasing (e.g. "比分保留来源口径") forces some interpretation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description does well on data coverage, ID sourcing, and freshness, but leaves pagination mechanics unexplained and never positions itself against get_match_results. Adequate for a read tool, but not complete.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains only stage_id's origin and team_id's filter form; limit and cursor receive no semantics at all, and the pagination sentence describes snapshot freshness rather than how cursor/limit behave.

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 verb+resource is explicit: query stage fixtures that have already been ingested ("查询已入库阶段赛程"), with scope narrowed to a stage and optional team. It points at list_seasons as the source of stage_id, which separates it from the season-listing sibling, but it never contrasts with get_match_results, which is the nearest overlap.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite (stage_id comes from list_seasons) and a filter path (catalog-team: ID), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not state when to prefer get_match_results or what to do when a stage has no ingested data, so usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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