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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe, non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies the status field values (NS, PPD), states that no auth is required, and mentions the free public data source. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized, leading with the purpose, then return fields, status semantics, common IDs, and sourcing note. No filler or repetition; every sentence contributes to tool comprehension.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return structure. It covers how to obtain the required parameter, provides common IDs, explains the status field, and confirms no auth. This is complete for a simple read-only retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the parameter with examples and sourcing. The description adds two extra common league IDs (4380 MLB, 4335 Scottish Premier) and repeats the sourcing guidance, which slightly enhances usability but does not fundamentally change semantics. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and this earns a 4 for the additional practical examples.

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 a specific action ('Get the next scheduled matches') and resource (a sports league by TheSportsDB league ID). It distinguishes from the sibling 'thesportsdb.events.past' by specifying 'next' and 'upcoming events', and includes common league IDs for immediate recognition.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (upcoming matches) and instructs on obtaining the league ID from team search results. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling 'thesportsdb.events.past' as the alternative for past matches, leaving that exclusion implicit. The guidance on league ID sourcing and common IDs is helpful.

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