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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world characteristics, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond them: a 20-30 second data lag behind live play and the empty-list semantics, both of which affect how an agent interprets results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the empty-result and freshness caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return payload, empty-result behavior and data staleness. With annotations carrying the safety profile and the schema documenting all four params, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the league param carries a full monitored-league catalog, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (sport, league, detail, include_odds are never mentioned), so the baseline 3 applies.

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: games currently in progress for a league, plus the returned payload (score, period/clock, status). The phrase 'right now' implicitly separates it from get_events/get_schedule, but no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 implied by 'in progress right now' and reinforced by 'Empty list when nothing is live', which tells the agent what a null result means. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_events, get_schedule or get_event, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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