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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (what each view returns) but says nothing about data freshness, empty-result behavior, or pagination. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose and view breakdown before the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 and full param coverage, the description need not explain return values but does anyways helpfully. It covers purpose, view semantics, and alternative routing; only minor gaps like data scope/edge cases remain.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by elaborating what each 'view' value yields (duels/wins/draws/goals for history, other fixtures for meetings, standing/points/form/top scorer/cards for season). This genuinely enriches the enum-less view parameter beyond 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 and resource ('Returns a pre-match comparison for one match') and then enumerates exactly what each view contains (history, meetings, season). It also names the sibling it is not ('Use fussballde_match for the match itself'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

Provides explicit routing to a sibling: 'Use fussballde_match for the match itself,' implying this tool is for the pre-match comparison layer. It does not spell out edge cases (e.g., what happens for teams that have never met), but the usage context is clear.

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