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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the GB default and the empty-list edge case, which tells the agent how to interpret a null result. It stops short of richer behavioral detail (auth, rate limits), but for a read-only lookup the added context 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by the parameter hint and the sibling routing. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with 100% schema coverage, the alternative routing, and the empty-list edge case, the description gives an agent 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 both parameters already document the eight-character match id and the ISO country code with GB default. The description's 'pass a match id' and 'geo defaults to GB' merely restate the schema, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it.

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 (TV channels and streaming services Flashscore shows for a match) with scope (one viewer market) and output fields (provider ids, names, links). It also names the sibling flashscore_match_info it should not be confused with, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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: use flashscore_match_info for the global venue and broadcaster text. Adds operational conditions — pass a match id, geo defaults to GB, and an empty list means none is listed for that market. Nothing is left to inference.

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