football_match_predictor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds return structure (most_likely_score, probabilities) and meta.estimated, but no additional behavioral traits beyond schema and annotations.

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-sentence summary plus structured Args and Returns. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, annotations covering safety, and existence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description sufficiently covers inputs and outputs. Could optionally add more about usage context (e.g., only works for certain leagues) but adequate.

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 baseline 3. Description repeats parameter descriptions from schema (home_team: first team code, away_team: second team code, neutral: True for neutral venue). Adds 'World Cup default' but no further semantic enrichment.

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?

Clearly states the tool predicts a single match with most likely scoreline and outcome probabilities. Distinguishes from sibling football tools that focus on betting, stats, or squad info, making its purpose unique.

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?

Explicitly says 'Predict a single match', implying it's for individual match predictions. Mentions neutral venue context for World Cup. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to siblings like football_xg_model, but overall clear.

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