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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that access is 'public' (no auth implied) and that results include match identity and score details, but it omits rate limits, error behavior for invalid paths, or how live vs finished matches differ.

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 compact sentences with the resource and the path requirement front-loaded. Every clause is relevant, though the two clauses could be tightened into a single sentence without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still signals the shape of results. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the path with a full example. The description reinforces the format (five-segment path after /en/) and the source of a canonical value, but adds little beyond the schema's own example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Fetch public LiveScore match details') and names the exact input mechanism (the five-segment path following /en/). It partially distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like livescore_match_stats and livescore_live_scores by noting the results are match identity and score details, though it doesn't name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for obtaining the path ('use the canonical path from a LiveScore match link'), which implies this is a detail-lookup rather than a search or list tool. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus livescore_match_stats, livescore_scores, or livescore_search.

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