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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's jobs are to explain the non-read-only behavior and the open-world sourcing. It does exactly that: 'Uses one read and saves the result in the user's Puley history' accounts for the write annotation, and naming ESPN and Cricbuzz discloses upstream sources. It does not cover failure modes or freshness/latency beyond 'checked now'.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the team/date semantics follow efficiently. The multi-line league enumeration, however, consumes most of the text with a raw roster of competitions rather than a compact statement, which is bulky relative to the information it conveys.

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 no output schema and an open-world, non-idempotent tool, the description is reasonably complete: it covers sources, the two optional query modes, and the history write. Gaps remain on the required league argument's format and on what a response looks like (per-team, per-day, or full slate).

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does well for 'team' (latest results plus next games, with TV) and 'date' (ISO-style example 2026-11-08 for that day's games), but 'league' is required and only inferable from a prose list of competitions — no format, casing, or accepted-value guidance is given.

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 opening clause 'Live scores, results and fixtures' states a specific resource and scope, and the long league enumeration makes the coverage concrete. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but no sibling in the list is sports-related, so confusion risk is low.

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 implies usage modes by explaining 'team: a team's latest results and next games' versus 'date: e.g. 2026-11-08 for that day's games', which hints at query-by-team versus query-by-day. It never states whether team and date can be combined, what happens when neither is supplied, or when to prefer this over a general news/search tool.

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