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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result set is cursor-paginated, and status partitions results into live/upcoming versus past/replay. It stops short of stating what happens with default status or limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the primary purpose leads and the sibling disambiguation follows.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers purpose, pagination, status partitioning, and sibling routing, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is the lack of concrete status values in a schema with no enums and no parameter descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning for two of four params: 'cursor-paginated' implies the 'after' cursor, and 'live/upcoming or past/replay' implies the 'status' modes. But it gives no values for status, and says nothing about 'slug' or 'limit', leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource (a shop's own live/upcoming or past/replay show list) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling fanaticslive_browse. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema or comparing siblings.

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 names the alternative (fanaticslive_browse) and the condition that separates them (this one is scoped to a single shop; browse spans all shops filtered by league). There is no explicit 'use this when' phrasing nor exclusion of other fanaticslive_shop* siblings, but the routing context is clear.

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