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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned (home/away teams, scores, round, date, time, venue, result string), noting 'no auth required', and identifying the data source (TheSportsDB). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and output.

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 a well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then lists return fields, provides common league IDs, explains how to get the ID, and notes the data source and auth. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how to obtain the required parameter, examples of valid IDs, and the fact that no auth is required. For a single-parameter, read-only lookup, this is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the league_id is a TheSportsDB league ID, provides common examples (4328 for EPL, 4387 for NBA, etc.), and instructs how to obtain it from team_search results. This goes beyond the schema's simple type and description, adding real-world context and guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('most recent completed match results for a sports league'), and identifies it by TheSportsDB league ID. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'thesportsdb.events.next' by focusing on completed/past events, and it names the return fields (home/away teams, scores, round, date, time, venue, result string) which adds specificity beyond the name.

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?

The description implicitly guides usage by emphasizing 'past' and 'completed', contrasting with the sibling 'events.next'. It also provides practical usage guidance on obtaining league IDs from team_search results and lists common league IDs. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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