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 that output is in the 'provider's raw delimited format', which is a useful behavioral hint about the non-JSON return shape, but it stops there — no note on live vs. pre-match availability or failure modes.

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 efficient sentence with the key distinguishing detail ('starting lineups and formation') front-loaded and the output format noted at the end. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of omitting usage context.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with a documented schema and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose and format adequately. It is thin on usage context and does not note that lineups may only exist near match time, leaving a small but real gap.

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%; the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (eight-character Flashscore match id from a public match URL). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (starting lineups and formation) scoped to a Flashscore match, which an agent can distinguish from flashscore_match_stats, flashscore_match_info, and flashscore_match_h2h. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer that this is the tool for lineup data from the purpose statement alone, and nothing tells it how this differs from the other flashscore_match_* tools.

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