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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the result is the most recently played match rather than an upcoming fixture or full match history.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence adds only the prerequisite discovery paths, with no wasted text.

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 simple read-only tool with a complete input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the required id discovery and the result semantics, though it could be stronger with explicit sibling differentiation.

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 parameter documentation already carries the burden. The description mentions league_id and team_id and points to discovery tools, but it does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: get the most recently played match for a team id in a league id. It is clear and distinguishable from next-match tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings such as openligadb_last_match or openligadb_league_team_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?

It gives useful prerequisite guidance by naming openligadb_leagues and openligadb_teams for discovering ids. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus closely related alternatives like openligadb_last_match, openligadb_matches_by_team, or openligadb_league_team_matches.

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