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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: free-tier status, newest-first ordering, null-until-graded card values, and upcoming appointments.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by output traits and the prerequisite sibling reference. Every sentence carries useful information and there is 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?

There is no output schema, but the description summarizes the return content (summary, matches, cards, appointments) and explains ordering and null behavior. With full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by saying exact names come from propline_get_referees and that sport_key uses the same 32 soccer leagues, though limit/since/until remain schema-only.

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 referee's summary plus their matches') and scope ('newest first, with each team's yellow and red cards... and upcoming appointments'). It distinguishes itself from propline_get_referees by directing the agent there for exact names.

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?

Tells the agent to get exact names from propline_get_referees and notes the same 32 soccer leagues, giving a clear prerequisite and context. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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