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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description is not obligated to restate them. It still adds useful behavior: the response contains credited image variants and deliberately omits article body text, which prevents an agent from assuming it can summarize the story from this call alone.

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, zero filler, and the payload scope is front-loaded before the routing guidance. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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-value structure need not be described; the description instead supplies the one thing the schema cannot convey — that body text is absent and where to get stories. Nothing needed to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its eight-character format and origin. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Fetch a public Flashscore news article') and defines the exact scope of the payload: title, publication metadata, and credited image variants, explicitly excluding body text. That scope statement alone distinguishes it from flashscore_news_article_body and from the listing siblings.

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?

Names three alternatives (flashscore_news, flashscore_match_news, flashscore_news_categories) and states the condition that selects each: finding stories vs. browsing feeds. The agent knows to use this tool only after it already has an article id.

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