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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety/scope profile, the description adds meaningful context: a hard cap of 100 items, that headlines are third-party (matching openWorldHint), and the critical limitation that article text is not included. This tells the agent what it will and will not get beyond the annotation baseline.

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, front-loaded with the return content and capped length, followed immediately by the sibling routing and the missing-text caveat. No wasted words.

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-value explanation isn't strictly required; the description nonetheless enumerates the returned fields (title, publisher, time, image, redirect link), which is mildly redundant but harmless. Purpose, alternative, and limitations are all covered.

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 only one parameter (id) exists, fully documented in the schema as an eight-character Flashscore team id with sourcing instructions. The description adds no parameter detail, so 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 ("Returns"), resource ("recent third-party publisher headlines"), and scope ("up to 100" for a Flashscore team), then distinguishes itself from the flashscore_news sibling. An agent can identify the tool and differentiate it 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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "Use flashscore_news for Flashscore's own articles." This gives clear routing between the two news tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use framing beyond that single sibling, but the context is clear.

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