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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the data is public, and the provider's delimited feed is returned as text rather than JSON, which materially affects how an agent should consume the response.

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 zero waste: the core action and its text-format caveat come first, sibling routing second. 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, in what format, and how to route to the correct sibling.

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 schema already states the id is an eight-character Flashscore match id from a public match URL. The description's 'id copied from its URL' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (fetch) and resource (Flashscore match statistics data) scoped to a match id, and immediately names the four sibling tools it is not. An agent can distinguish it from flashscore_match_info, _lineups, _h2h and _standings without opening any 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 the agent: this tool for statistics, flashscore_match_info for venue/broadcast, flashscore_match_lineups for formations, flashscore_match_h2h for recent results, flashscore_match_standings for tables. The when-to-use-this condition is implied by the first sentence and each alternative has a stated scope, leaving little inference.

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