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 adds beyond that by disclosing the pagination behavior (cursor-paginated), which tells the agent how to iterate results rather than assuming a single flat page.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the sibling disambiguation trailing it. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description need not explain return values. It covers scope, the sibling distinction, and pagination, leaving only minor operational details (e.g., default limit behavior beyond the schema note) unstated.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning to the status parameter by mapping it to live/upcoming vs past/replay lists, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'live, replay' enumeration. It does not elaborate further on limit or cursor semantics.

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 and scope: a single Fanatics Live shop's own show list, split by live/upcoming vs past/replay. It explicitly contrasts itself with fanaticslive_browse, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 description names the sibling tool and the discriminating condition (per-shop vs across-all-shops filtered by league), which is exactly the routing decision an agent faces. It does not restate prerequisites such as obtaining the shop slug, though the schema covers that.

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