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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a genuinely useful behavioral fact the schema lacks — the schedule covers a seven-day window — but says nothing about pagination, coverage per country, or response shape.

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 resource and both scoping dimensions front-loaded; no filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and how it is scoped. It is essentially complete for a simple read tool, though the seven-day window could be tied more explicitly to the timezone parameter.

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%, so both the country code and timezone default semantics are already documented in the schema. The description only restates those two axes without adding format or sourcing detail, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: FotMob's football broadcast schedule, scoped to seven days, country and IANA timezone. It is clearly distinguishable from the channel/country lookup siblings, but it never names them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'by country and timezone' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus fotmob_tv_guide_channels or fotmob_tv_guide_countries, which is exactly the routing an agent needs here.

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