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 two valuable behaviors beyond that: output preserves the provider's raw delimited text rather than parsed structure, and missing lineups yield a not-found result. Doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only open-world fetch this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the routing and the not-found caveat. No filler. Slightly dense with the raw-text qualifier, but every clause earns its place.

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?

Given a single required param with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, the raw-text format, the empty-result behavior, and sibling routing. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already describes id as an eight-character Flashscore match id from a public match URL. The description reinforces the URL-derived id but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 resource (starting lineups and formation for a Flashscore match) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the other flashscore_match_* tools by listing which siblings serve the other match data. An agent can route between lineups, stats, info, and h2h without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names three alternative tools (flashscore_match_stats, flashscore_match_info, flashscore_match_h2h) and the condition that selects them (other match data). It also states the when-not case: matches without published lineups return not found.

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