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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the listed sections are merely 'available' (implying they may not all be present) and points at the previousFixturesUrl field, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or freshness beyond that.

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 leads with what the tool returns and then adds the routing hint. No wasted clauses, though the section list makes it slightly dense.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description says what it returns, which sections exist, and where to go for older matches. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its origin from fotmob/search. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema's own documentation, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 the resource and scope clearly: 'FotMob public team details' and enumerates the available sections (overview, table, fixtures, squad, stats, transfers, history). It even routes one sibling case to fotmob_team_fixtures, so an agent can tell this apart from related team tools.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: use fotmob_team_fixtures with fixtures.previousFixturesUrl for older matches. This is concrete routing guidance, though it covers only the historical-fixtures case and gives no general when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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