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 a genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations – that the provider's raw delimited text is preserved rather than parsed – which tells the agent what the return payload looks like. No auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode info, but the bar is lower with annotations present.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and returned fields, followed by the behavioral note and the routing hint. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 the description need not explain return values, and it does cover purpose, format caveat, and alternatives. The remaining gap is the unaddressed relationship to flashscore_match_tv, which an agent must still resolve when the request is about TV/broadcast access.

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 is fully documented in the schema ('Eight-character Flashscore match id from a public match URL'). The description only restates 'by match `id`' and adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Fetch) and the exact payload (venue, city, capacity, broadcast listings) plus the keying parameter (match `id`). It is easy to separate from flashscore_match_stats/lineups, which are named. This is a precise verb+resource statement.

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?

It gives explicit reverse routing (use flashscore_match_stats or flashscore_match_lineups 'for match data'), which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. However it does not address the very close sibling flashscore_match_tv, which also deals with broadcast/TV data, leaving that overlap unresolved.

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