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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description still adds real value by disclosing that it returns references, not article body text — an important expectation-setting detail that prevents the agent from mistaking this for a content endpoint. It stops short of noting pagination or result limits, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the alternative-routing guidance follows immediately. 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be enumerated, and the description still clarifies the nature of the return (references, not body text). Combined with the id-source guidance and explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 parameter description already states the eight-character match id sourced from a public match URL. The description repeats this verbatim ('pass its eight-character match id from a public match URL') rather than adding format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. 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 (List) and resource (article references associated with a Flashscore match), and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming flashscore_news (general feed) and flashscore_news_article (single story metadata). An agent can distinguish this tool from the rest of the flashscore_match_* family without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use flashscore_news for the general feed or flashscore_news_article with a returned article id for one story's public metadata.' This names both alternatives and the condition selecting each, leaving nothing to inference.

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