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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the description's added context is the field inventory and the explicit statement that prediction data is omitted, which tells the agent what it will and will not get back. It does not cover ordering or result volume, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and its scope, then packs the returned fields into a parenthetical with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape, and the parenthetical field list does exactly that while flagging the excluded prediction fields. Minor gaps remain around ordering and whether the list is paginated or bounded.

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 both parameters (mode, status) already carry enum-level descriptions including 'omit for both/all' defaults. The description adds no extra meaning about these filters, 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?

States a specific resource (published football matches) and enumerates the fields returned (teams, kickoff, entry deadline, status, result). The clause 'without the prediction fields' implicitly separates it from prediction-oriented siblings such as get_match_prediction, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the exclusion of prediction fields hints that prediction tools should be used when those are wanted, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or a named alternative like find_matches. An agent can infer the split, but must do the work itself.

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