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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context by disclosing that goal detail strings only appear 'where the source carries them' — a data-completeness caveat the agent would otherwise not know — but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity of the resource, followed by the field list and then the usage instruction. The field enumeration is long but each element is informative; there is no filler, though the run-on first sentence could be tightened.

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 in play, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and how to obtain the required id, which is what an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing failure modes for a bad id or a non-football event, leaving a small gap.

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 both parameters (event_id and the optional _apiKey) are already documented in the schema, including the free-tier/supporter-key rate-limit note. The description adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the schema's example id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('one match by its TheSportsDB event id') and enumerates the returned fields: final and half-time score, competition, season, round, venue, date, kickoff, goal detail strings. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like event_stats, event_lineup and event_timeline, which cover other facets of an event.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'for settling a match-level question (who won, what was the half-time score)' and names the three sibling tools (events_by_day, team_events_last, team_events_next) that supply the required event id first. The routing condition and the prerequisite are both spelled out rather than left to inference.

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