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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description adds only the 'public' qualifier, which largely restates openWorldHint, and says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or whether the lineup reflects a specific match. Modest added value on top of annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three returned artifacts, with the provenance hint trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 need no explanation, and the single read-only parameter is documented. For such a simple read tool the definition is nearly sufficient; only the lack of sibling differentiation leaves a small 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% and the single team_id parameter is fully documented there as a required numeric FotMob id. The description echoes the id's origin (fotmob_search) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 (Fetch) and a precisely scoped resource: the lineup builder formation, starting lineup, and squad for a team. This clearly distinguishes it from fotmob_team (team metadata) and fotmob_lineup_builder_players (player pool), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

The phrase 'for a team id from fotmob_search' gives an actionable prerequisite for obtaining the input, which is genuinely helpful. However, it never states when to prefer this over fotmob_team, fotmob_team_fixtures, or fotmob_lineup_builder_players, so the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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