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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'live real-time' and 'active match,' indicating that data is ephemeral and tied to ongoing matches. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with valuable specifics. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 simple single-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool. Minor gaps include not explaining behavior for expired or finished matches, but this is not critical for a live scoreboard tool.

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?

The schema covers the single matchId parameter 100%, including examples and description. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond implying the match must be active, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource: a live in-game scoreboard for an active CS2 match. It enumerates distinctive data elements (round, bomb status, team scores, player stats) that differentiate it from sibling tools like cs2_clutches or cs2_round_economy.

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?

The phrase 'for an active CS2 match' implies when the tool should be used, and the tool's unique focus on live scoreboard data is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some routing to inference.

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