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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' but adds no behavioral details such as default count if omitted, error handling, or rate limits. The requirement for a valid teamId is stated, but other traits are absent.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. However, the critical note is redundant with the schema's required field and could be integrated more meaningfully.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is underspecified: it doesn't clarify the X parameter, default behavior, or differentiate from the extended variant. The sibling list shows many similar tools, making this incomplete for selection.

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 descriptions are both 'The unique numeric ID.', which is ambiguous and doesn't differentiate count from teamId. The description says 'last X' but never explicitly maps X to the count parameter. With 100% coverage but unhelpful content, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'last X match results for a specific team', clearly distinguishing it from match detail/stat tools. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to get_team_last_x_extended or get_season_last_x, so sibling differentiation is implicit.

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?

No usage context is provided beyond a critical note that a valid teamId is required. It doesn't say when to use this vs get_team_last_x_extended or get_team_next_x, or any exclusions. The 'CRITICAL' note is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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