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

The description aligns with readOnly annotation by indicating read-only access to results, and adds the constraint of only finished games. No side effects are implied, matching destructiveHint false.

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?

The description is brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that convey the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains it returns final scores, which is sufficient. It also clarifies scope (finished games) and gives usage examples, but could mention limitations like date range or that teams are country names.

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?

It states parameters can filter by date, team, or group, but lacks details on expected formats or combinations. The schema provides no descriptions, so the tool description partially compensates but remains vague.

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 clearly states the tool returns final scores of finished games and provides usage examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like schedule or matches.

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 suggests usage for queries like 'yesterday's results' and 'how did Brazil do', and mentions filterable fields, but doesn't explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., for upcoming matches).

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