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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the result set — the exact fields returned and the deliberate exclusion of consensus fields. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or emptying behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Every clause earns its place by either describing the response or steering the agent to the right sibling.

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 read-only, filter-only list tool with complete schema descriptions, the only real gap would be the return shape — and the description covers it by enumerating the returned fields and noting the omission of consensus data even though no output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are enums with their own descriptions ('Restrict to one game mode; omit for all'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when structured fields are complete.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list matches in the feed) with an explicit enumeration of what the records contain (teams, kickoff, lock deadline, status, result) and an explicit statement of what they omit (consensus fields). It names the sibling get_consensus, so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives 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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use this for raw match data, use get_consensus for the crowd's picks. The alternative and its selecting condition are stated explicitly. It does not address the second sibling get_crowd_record or spell out any when-not condition, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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