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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: results are newest first, the default response contains closing lines up to 50 matches, and seasons default differently for main versus extra leagues. It stops short of describing returned fields or rate limits, but adds real behavioral detail beyond 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 core purpose is front-loaded and the description stays compact across three sentences. There is minor redundancy with schema text and a small formatting awkwardness around bookmakers:"all", but no sentence is materially wasted.

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 read-only tool with full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: scope, default result size, and season behavior. It does not fully describe the returned match/odds fields, but the essential operational context is present.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description mostly reiterates defaults and modes from the schema, such as compact closing lines, bookmakers:"all", and season defaults, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: a team's football results and odds across seasons of a single football-data.co.uk league, newest first. This clearly distinguishes it from match-level odds tools and league-listing tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Gives useful configuration guidance, including the compact default, how to widen results with bookmakers:"all" or a higher limit, and the default season search behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings such as match_odds or bet_research, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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