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 usefully adds behavioral context the annotations lack: this is an aggregate read returning several distinct blocks of data (rank, form, past and future matches), which tells the agent to expect a compound response rather than a single record.

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?

Three sentences with zero padding: the returned payload is front-loaded, then trigger examples, then ID sourcing. Every clause carries actionable information for the agent.

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 a single fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, which it does explicitly. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining that teamId is numeric and shares the same identifier space as the /team/{teamId} web page, plus naming two concrete sibling tools (get_matches_by_date home.id/away.id, get_standings teamId) from which it can be obtained. That provenance guidance is not in the schema.

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 (return a single team's profile) and enumerates the exact contents: league ranking, season record, last-5 form, most recent finished match, and upcoming fixtures. This is clearly separable from siblings like get_standings and get_matches_by_date, which provide only one slice of that data.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ("how is Arsenal doing", "who does Man City play next", "where does team X rank") and routes the agent to the sibling tools that supply a valid teamId. It never states when NOT to use it or how it differs from get_standings for pure ranking lookups, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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