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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the returned structure (score/status/venue/round plus a chronological event timeline), which tells the agent what kind of data to expect without an output schema.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then the usage triggers, then the parameter sourcing in three tight sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and event types, and it closes the parameter-provenance loop via sibling tools. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of pagination or error behavior for invalid ids), which is acceptable for a read-only single-record lookup.

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 schema itself documents the id format and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by telling the agent where to obtain matchId (get_matches_by_date or get_live_matches), adding chaining guidance the schema does not provide.

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?

Names a specific resource (单场比赛) and enumerates the payload precisely: 比分、状态、场地、轮次, plus a minute-by-minute event timeline (进球、红黄牌、换人、VAR). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tools get_matches_by_date and get_live_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?

Gives concrete user-intent triggers ('谁进的球', '第几分钟进的', '详细过程') that tell the agent when this tool is the right call, and points to get_matches_by_date / get_live_matches as the source of matchId. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., bulk/date-range queries should go elsewhere), so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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