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 adds that this is a static catalog/enumeration lookup whose outputs parameterize other tools, which is useful behavioral context, though it says nothing about freshness or scope of the code lists.

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, no filler. The catalog contents come first and the call-ordering directive is placed last where it is most actionable.

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, the description need not document return values, and it still summarizes what the catalog contains. For a zero-parameter reference tool this is essentially complete, with only the list dimensions/exhaustiveness left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description names the value families the catalog exposes, but since there are no inputs, there is little parameter meaning to add beyond that.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a precisely named resource (the Flashscore odds and TV catalog), with the contents enumerated: country codes, US states/Canadian provinces, betting types, scopes, handicap types. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling match-level tools it feeds.

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 tells the agent to call this FIRST and states the values it yields (geo, subdivision, filter) along with the two consumers, flashscore_match_odds and flashscore_match_tv. This is a routing instruction, not an inference the agent has to make.

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