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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the upstream JSON shape is preserved and 'some sections may be absent', warning the agent that the response is variable and possibly partial. It stops short of describing auth or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the routing guidance. Dense with semicolon-separated clauses but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. It completes the picture by listing the possible sections and warning some may be absent, which is exactly what an agent needs to set expectations for this variable response.

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 as a required numeric FotMob match id. The description only restates 'by match id', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (Fetch) and resource (FotMob match-details data) scoped by match `id`, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tools fotmob_matches and fotmob_match_media. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Names the two relevant alternatives and the condition that selects each: fotmob_matches to find matches, fotmob_match_media for highlights. This is explicit routing rather than implied usage, leaving little to inference.

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