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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-fetch behavior are covered. The description adds that the response includes 'visible sections' and requires a public path after /en/, which is useful but modest context. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or failure behavior for invalid paths.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the resource/scope is front-loaded before the sourcing instruction. Nothing is wasted, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 only one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema that handles return values, the description needs only to establish purpose and path sourcing, which it does. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already specifies the path format (three to five lowercase segments following /en/). The description adds the sourcing hint ('discovered from the competition directory') but no format detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Get') and resource ('LiveScore competition or stage page data'), and mentions 'visible sections'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling livescore_competitions by pointing to the directory as the source of paths rather than returning the directory itself.

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 'Use a path discovered from the competition directory' establishes the intended workflow and implicitly routes the agent to livescore_competitions first. No explicit exclusions or when-not guidance, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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