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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the upstream's key constraint: at most 10 matches per request, no paging, and truncated=true when the page is full. It also states zero matches is valid and gives default/max date windows, all critical for correct invocation.

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 purpose, then behavior, then edge case (zero matches), then sibling routing. Every sentence conveys actionable information with no waste.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fills the remaining gaps: truncation/pagination semantics, default range, and valid empty response. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 each parameter including defaults and the 92-day limit. The description largely echoes these (default today plus six days, max 92 days) and adds only the team-type example, so it provides marginal value over the schema.

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 (matches FUSSBALL.DE's Matchkalender lists around a postcode within a date range), with the filtering options named. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming fussballde_match for single matches and fussballde_postal_codes for lookups.

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 fussballde_postal_codes to find a postcode and fussballde_match for one match. It also provides the operational alternative when results are truncated (narrow dates or filters), covering the main decision point an agent faces.

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