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's added value is enumerating returned fields, which is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and it discloses nothing about auth scope, caching, or failure modes for unknown team ids.

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 opening content enumeration is well front-loaded, but the routing guidance is stated twice: 'fussballde-team-matches / fussballde-team-squad' and then again as 'fussballde_team_matches / fussballde_team_squad'. The duplicate, plus the hyphenated names that don't match the actual sibling identifiers, is wasted space that 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?

With annotations carrying the read-only profile and an output schema describing the return shape, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, which it does thoroughly. The hyphenated sibling names in the first routing sentence are the one loose end.

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% and the single team_id parameter already documents its source tools and gives a concrete example id. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully-documented single param 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one team page') and then enumerates exactly what that page contains: standings, competitions, venues, club profile, season history. An agent can immediately tell this is the single-entity team detail tool versus the fixtures/squad siblings.

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_team_matches for fixtures, fussballde_team_squad for players or fussballde_club for the whole club.' This names the alternatives and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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