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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results contain 'available team and player stats,' which is partly redundant with the output schema, and discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or completeness of stats.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the scoping constraint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the input requirement and usage scope. It is complete for invocation, though it could note the prerequisite of obtaining a valid match path from a listing tool.

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 documents the path parameter with an example. The description adds genuine meaning by specifying the 'five-segment' structure and the '/en/'-prefixed public path convention, clarifying the required format beyond the schema text.

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 (Fetch) and resource (statistics for a LiveScore match), and scopes it to a single fixture. It explicitly separates itself from discovery-oriented siblings like livescore_live_scores/livescore_scores via 'for one fixture rather than live-score discovery.'

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('for one fixture') and a when-not ('rather than live-score discovery'). It stops short of naming the specific alternative sibling (e.g. livescore_match) to use when you want fixture detail without stats, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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