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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, safe behavior, so the description's added value is the failure-mode disclosure: coverage is per-competition and an uncovered match returns found:false with a reason rather than an error. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the payload, the second routes usage, the third flags the coverage limitation. Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant content and no filler.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return fields (scorer, assist, minute, side) and it also covers the key edge case of uncovered matches. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly is missing.

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%, with event_id fully documented as the TheSportsDB idEvent and _apiKey explaining the free-tier/supporter-key tradeoff. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource and granularity ('minute-by-minute timeline for one match') and enumerates exactly what it returns: goals with scorer and assist, cards, substitutions, each with minute and side. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like event_detail, event_lineup, and event_stats.

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?

'Use for settling scorer, first-goal and card questions' gives a concrete use case, and the coverage caveat tells the agent when the tool will not deliver. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling or explicit exclusions, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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