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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds the paging contract (limit 1-50 default 10, offset) and the 'final is true on the last page' signal, which is useful termination behavior. It repeats the teaser fields that the output schema already carries, so a point is held back.

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 core scope and paging facts are front-loaded, but the closing sentences duplicate each other ('Use the article id with fussballde-news-article for the full text' vs 'Use fussballde_news_article with a returned id for the full text'), and the hyphenated tool name is a wrong spelling that wastes a sentence and could mislead.

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?

For a five-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers scope, filtering, paging, and next-step routing. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing; only the duplicated sibling reference is dead weight.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the stream enum and the 'implies stream helpcenter/regionalliga' behavior. The description mostly restates ranges and defaults rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns news teasers of one FUSSBALL.DE stream') and enumerates the exact streams, so an agent can tell it apart from fussballde_news_article and fussballde_news_search 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use regional_league/help_category to narrow Regionalliga and help-center streams, use the returned id with fussballde_news_article for full text, or fussballde_news_search to search by keyword. Both the when and the alternatives are spelled out.

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