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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — the directory is 'current', covers a seven-day window, and includes match counts — but does not discuss auth, rate limits, or return format (the latter is covered by the output schema).

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 with no filler. Every clause (current, channel directory, match counts, country, seven-day scope) earns its place and immediately conveys the tool's output.

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-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns and its temporal/country scope. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling TV-guide tools, but that is already captured under usage guidelines.

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%: the single 'country' parameter already explains it is a required country code from fotmob/tv-guide-countries. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource (channel directory) and scope (a country's seven-day TV schedule) with match counts, which distinguishes it from sibling fotmob_tv_guide_countries (country list) and fotmob_tv_guide (schedule). It lacks an explicit verb ('List'/'Get'), but an agent can still identify the resource clearly.

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 implied: the tool returns a channel directory for a country's seven-day schedule, so an agent can infer it is called when channel-level TV schedule data is needed. However, the description never states when to use this versus fotmob_tv_guide or other TV-guide siblings, nor does it mention the prerequisite country code lookup.

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