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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with the description's read-only nature. The description adds no contradictory info, but it also does not elaborate on side effects or special behaviors beyond the annotations.

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 very concise, using two short sentences that clearly convey the purpose without unnecessary filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 the presence of annotations that establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and a clear purpose statement, the description is largely complete for basic usage. However, the lack of parameter detail and explicit filtering semantics leaves some ambiguity for more complex queries.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for date, stage, or timezone, and the description only hints at date and stage ('por data', 'um dia, de uma fase'). The timezone parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and format unclear.

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 provides the tournament schedule grouped by date, for a single day, a phase, or the entire World Cup. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., results, standings) by focusing on the match schedule.

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 description explicitly says to use it to see the match table for a day, phase, or entire cup, which gives clear usage direction. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the scope is evident from the sibling names and the wording.

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