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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: only 'active' competitions, explicitly 'not an archive of inactive seasons'. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, which would be the remaining gap.

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 sentences, all front-loaded: purpose and scope first, then the negative scoping ('not an archive'), then routing. No sentence is redundant and the key constraint is not buried.

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. Purpose, active-only scope, and sibling routing are all present, making the definition callable as-is. Only minor gaps (e.g., result ordering or size) remain, which the output schema likely covers.

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 both parameters (sport with its supported-key list, day_offset with range and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the day_offset range and the sport/day_offset pairing, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('Flashscore competition records and event counts') scoped to sport and day_offset. It also names the siblings it is not (flashscore_calendar, flashscore_scores), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to flashscore_calendar for date navigation and flashscore_scores for results, and clarifies this tool is the 'selected score-feed date inventory'. The precise condition that selects this tool over those is only implied rather than stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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