football_match_predictor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait, meta.estimated: true, which tells the agent outputs are model estimates, but the rest of the Returns block largely restates what the output schema provides.

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 one-line summary followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Slightly redundant with the input and output schemas, but nothing is padded or confusing.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety, so the description is close to sufficient. The only gap is the absence of guidance on venue/neutral semantics or distinctness from sibling prediction tools.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description repeats the same wording (including the "ESP"/"Spain" example) rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: predicting one match's scoreline and outcome probabilities. The phrase "a single match" implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like football_simulate_bracket or cross_sport_build_accumulator, though 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 by the scope words "single match" and the neutral-venue default. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus football_xg_model, football_simulate_group, or football_simulate_bracket, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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