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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations - 'without article body text' - telling the agent this returns references only, not full content. It does not cover pagination, result volume, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentence with the key scoping and the content-exclusion caveat front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to leave questions about ordering and completeness.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description adequately states scope and the no-body-text constraint. For a read tool with a single required id this is acceptable, but it omits any indication of result volume, ordering, or how references relate to match timeline.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as an eight-character match id from a public match URL. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 states a specific resource (news article references) scoped to a match and clarifies the boundary vs. general Flashscore news tools via 'associated with a match.' An agent can distinguish it from flashscore_news or flashscore_news_article, though the phrasing 'references' is slightly abstract about what is actually returned.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative (e.g., flashscore_news, flashscore_news_article) is named. The match-scoping is implied by the phrase 'associated with a match' but the agent must infer the selection context.

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