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 only that the source is 'public' and that it uses the English United States variant, which is mild extra context but does not explain freshness, availability, or what happens when no highlights exist.

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 identifies the resource before the locale caveat. It is efficient, though the source-variant clause is somewhat underspecified in a very short space.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, read-only, output schema present so return shape need not be described). However, the description gives no indication of what the media response contains or what a match without highlights returns, leaving a modest gap for a media-specific endpoint.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the required match id and its origin (fotmob/matches or fotmob/search). The description adds nothing about the id format or constraints, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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 (highlight video and media metadata) scoped to a FotMob match, which is distinguishable from siblings like fotmob_match, fotmob_audio_matches and fotmob_team_news. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against those neighbors.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. fotmob_match for general match data or fotmob_audio_matches for audio). The only contextual hint is the locale variant note, which is not a usage condition. An agent must infer the fit from the name alone.

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