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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that output includes live and total event counts 'when available,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth.

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 what the tool returns and immediately followed by how to use it. Every clause earns its place; no repetition or filler.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and with annotations covering safety, it provides everything needed: purpose, role as prerequisite for sibling tools, and the no-input constraint. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the description explicitly reinforces this with 'takes no input,' matching the empty schema. With no parameters there is no schema semantics to add, so the baseline of 4 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 (lists) and resource (every sport key the SofaScore tools accept), with concrete examples (football, tennis, basketball, mma, esports) and mentions live/total event counts. It clearly distinguishes itself from its siblings, which are event/tournament/player-specific tools, so an agent knows this is the sports enum source.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it first to pick a valid sport for sofascore_live_events, sofascore_categories, or sofascore_scheduled_tournaments,' naming the downstream alternatives and the ordering condition. It also notes 'takes no input,' which prevents pointless parameter attempts.

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