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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: parallel-safety, upstream cost range, CS2 live path, UFC empty-board handling including health fields and a warning never to fabricate match items from events[]. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance an agent needs.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a one-line purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, per-game edge cases, and performance notes. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and every section earns its place without unnecessary padding.

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 read-only live-matches tool with 3 optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers alternatives, edge cases (UFC empty board), performance characteristics, and example usage. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required here, so nothing important is missing.

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 input schema already covers all parameters fully (100% schema description coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete usage example ({ "game": "all", "limitPerGame": 10 }), clarifies the single-game filter concept, and reinforces batching behavior via limitPerGame, slightly exceeding the schema alone.

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 states the tool provides a live matches board across primary games or a filtered single game, with normalized labels, scores, and matchIds. It explicitly distinguishes itself from upcoming_schedule, match_summary, and per-game call_api probes, so an agent can clearly understand what this tool is for.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios ('What's live right now?', ops/dashboard live strip), names a preferred alternative path (avoid sequential call_api probes), and provides do-not-use guidance with direct sibling alternatives (upcoming_schedule, match_summary). This leaves minimal ambiguity about tool selection.

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