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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words on non-obvious behavior: deduplication by source ID within a pagination chain, no automatic merging across sources, and the possibility of an empty page that still carries a next_cursor. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It does not describe the shape of what comes back per source, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose comes first, then source routing, then pagination caveats — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler sentences despite the density. The clauses are tightly packed with semicolons, which is efficient but edges toward being hard to skim.

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 5-parameter, 0%-schema-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the hardest parts: source semantics, the stage_id dependency, dedup rules, and empty-page pagination behavior. An agent could call it correctly for the main paths, though the absence of any statement about result contents leaves the return contract to be discovered empirically.

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%, so the description carries the full burden: it defines the three meaningful values of `source` and the conditional requirement that `stage_id` be supplied for catalog. It says nothing about `limit`, `query` matching semantics (prefix vs fuzzy), or what `cursor` should contain beyond implying it follows next_cursor. Roughly half the parameters are explained, so it partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("按名称搜索球队" / search teams by name) and the rest clarifies that the tool spans catalog (teams/venues/fixtures), squad, and availability data. This distinguishes it meaningfully from siblings like get_team_squad and get_team_availability, though the scope expansion beyond just "teams" makes the headline purpose slightly broader than the name implies.

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 explicitly routes the agent across sources: catalog for teams/venues/fixtures and stage_id is mandatory there, squad for rosters, availability for injuries. That is concrete when-to-use guidance tied to parameter values. It stops short of naming sibling tools (e.g., get_fixtures) or stating when NOT to use this search in favor of them.

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