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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with open-world behavior. The description adds the browsing behavior when query is empty, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, result format, or pagination beyond what's in the schema.

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 core purpose and immediately followed by the key behavioral note about empty query. Zero waste.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavior (search vs. browse). It could be improved by mentioning sibling tools or additional constraints, but it is largely complete for a simple search 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%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters including defaults and allowed values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search or browse) and resource (LiveScore teams, competition stages, region categories). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like livescore_competitions or livescore_team.

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 ('Leave query empty to browse') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like livescore_competitions or livescore_team. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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