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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them by noting the source is 'SofaScore's credential-free public JSON,' telling the agent no auth is required. It stops short of rate-limit or failure-mode detail.

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 front-loaded and the data source trailing. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 simple id-based lookup with a present output schema, the definition is nearly complete: the agent knows what it returns, what to pass, and that no credentials are required. Minor gaps are error/not-found behavior, which is low-stakes here.

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 the single required 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (numeric SofaScore team id, e.g. 2817). The description's 'one team's' phrasing 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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('one team's detail') and enumerates the payload contents (identity, manager, venue, primary competition). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sofascore_team_events or sofascore_team_players, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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: an agent infers this is the lookup to call when it has a SofaScore team id and wants profile data. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to search_team_events alternatives.

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