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 the id-discovery dependency, which is useful, but says nothing about return shape, caching, or rate behavior. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 carrying the core purpose plus the id-discovery routing, with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. Required ids and their provenance are stated in both schema and description. Only the distinction from fotmob_player_stats is left for the agent to infer.

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 both parameters are already documented in-schema as required numeric FotMob ids with their discovery sources. The description restates the same discovery paths, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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+resource: 'FotMob per-player stats for a specific match.' An agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearby sibling fotmob_player_stats (likely aggregate/career stats), so a small ambiguity remains between per-match and season-level player stats.

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?

Gives practical routing: discover player ids via fotmob_search and match ids via fotmob_match or fotmob_player_matches. That is clear prerequisite context. It lacks any statement of when NOT to use this vs fotmob_player_stats, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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