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 useful context beyond that: the detail is 'public' and the required path is the canonical five-segment path taken from a match link. It does not discuss return content, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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, front-loaded with the action and the required input form, followed by the disambiguation guidance. No 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 a single documented parameter, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to construct the path, and which alternatives to use.

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 includes an illustrative path example. The description still adds value by specifying that the path is a five-segment structure taken after /en/, which complements the schema's 'relative path without /en/' note.

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 ('public LiveScore match details') and specifies the exact input form (five-segment match path after /en/). It is clearly distinguished from sibling detail tools like livescore_match_stats and livescore_scores, which it names directly.

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 routes the agent: use livescore_search or livescore_live_scores to find matches, and livescore_match_stats or livescore_scores for related data. It also tells the agent to source the path from a canonical match link, which is the correct precondition for calling this tool.

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