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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the default aggregation across competitions and the 'not found' outcome for sports without a squad page. It stops short of auth/rate-limit or failure-mode detail, but the added edge-case disclosure is real.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the payload so an agent immediately knows what comes back. Each sentence earns its place: payload, scope/default behavior, and the not-found edge case.

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 the return-shape recap is optional but harmless; parameters are fully documented and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers defaults and the not-found case, leaving only minor gaps such as whether an invalid scope errors or falls back.

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 every parameter (id, slug, scope) is already documented in the schema, including the scope default. The description restates the scope semantics ('one competition' vs totals) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema and its enum-free descriptions supply. Baseline 3.

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') and resource (a team's squad) and enumerates the payload structure: position grouping, jersey number, age, country, injury note, season stats and coach. This is specific enough to distinguish it from flashscore_team (metadata) and flashscore_team_fixtures/results 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?

It explains the scope default ('totals across competitions') and how to switch to a single competition, but never names an alternative sibling or states when this tool is the right choice versus flashscore_team or flashscore_player_injuries. Usage is implied through the scope note, not explicitly framed.

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