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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world nature are covered without the description. The description adds only that results span three entity categories, and says nothing about result counts, pagination, ranking, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One short sentence with the scope (teams, players, competitions) front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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-value details need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. For a single-parameter search entry point the description is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is that it doesn't tell the agent the results are meant to be consumed by the entity-specific sofascore_* siblings.

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 the single parameter q is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (search) and resource scope (SofaScore entities: teams, players, competitions), so an agent immediately knows this is the entry-point lookup tool. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from any sibling such as sofascore_team or sofascore_player to clarify that this returns matches rather than details.

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?

The word 'universal' implies this is the broad entry-point search, and the listed entity types hint at when it applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that results feed into the entity-specific siblings (sofascore_team, sofascore_player, sofascore_event), and no exclusions.

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