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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are paginated one page at a time and continuation requires the numeric `before` timestamp from the previous URL. It doesn't describe rate limits or error 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?

The purpose and key scoping rule are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (filters, pagination, alternatives). It is dense but not padded; the only mild cost is a single long run-on sentence covering three ideas.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the two things an agent must know: pagination via `before` and valid filter sourcing. Nothing necessary for a correct call 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the filter-source constraint (`matchFilters`) and how `before` is derived from the previous URL, going beyond the raw field docs.

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 player's match-history records), scoped to one page keyed by `player_id`. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like fotmob_player and fotmob_matches.

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 routes the agent: use fotmob_player for profile filters, fotmob_player_match_stats for a single match, or fotmob_matches for a team schedule. It also explains where permitted filters come from (the player's matchFilters) and how to paginate.

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