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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds only a hint of returned content (possession, shots), which is minor given an output schema exists; it discloses nothing about rate limits or data scope.

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 wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple lookup, though the trailing '(possession, shots, and more)' is somewhat filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a match-stat lookup the description could still clarify which event ids are valid or what stats coverage exists, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole 'id' parameter is fully documented there (with an example value), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 resource (SofaScore match statistics) with concrete examples (possession, shots), making the verb 'retrieve stats' clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like sofascore_event_lineups or sofascore_event_odds, but never names an alternative to make the boundary explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or references to alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the stats view of a match rather than lineups, incidents, or odds.

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