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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('current public season calendar page', 'winner when present', 'competition path when linked'), but says nothing about pagination, coverage limits, or what happens for invalid categories.

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 that states the resource first and then the returned fields. Efficient with no filler, though it spends words on return values that the output schema likely already covers.

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 the return-value enumeration is largely redundant, and annotations cover the safety profile. The real gap is the undocumented required 'category' argument and how to source it, which the description does not address.

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% and the single required 'category' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The description lists output fields but leaves the input parameter's meaning, format, and valid values completely undocumented, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Returns events listed on the current public season calendar page,' and even enumerates the returned fields (month label, date label, event name, winner). It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like flashscore_calendar_categories or flashscore_tournament_events.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that a 'category' is required, and no hint that flashscore_calendar_categories likely supplies valid category values. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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