football_form_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: 'meta.estimated: true — derived from available fixture data', disclosing that values are estimates. It says nothing about match window or competition scope, which matters for a form metric.

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-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns blocks with zero filler. Minor waste in the Args block, which restates the schema description word for word.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value listing is redundant but harmless, and the estimated-data caveat covers the key trust question for this kind of derived metric. It stops short of stating the match window or whether club and international fixtures are both in scope.

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 the single 'team' parameter is documented there. The Args block in the description repeats that schema text verbatim, adding no new meaning; 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 verb and resource: 'Return rolling form, goal record, and xG trend for a football team', and enumerates the returned metrics. An agent immediately understands the resource, though nothing distinguishes it from overlapping siblings such as football_xg_model or football_match_predictor.

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 by 'rolling form' and by the returned metrics; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With football_xg_model also producing xG data, the absence of routing guidance leaves real ambiguity.

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