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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds that the article is 'public' and 'full,' which hints at no auth and complete body content, but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes for bad paths, or content format. With an output schema present, the burden is low and a 3 is appropriate.

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 zero waste: purpose first, routing second. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple: one fully documented parameter, an output schema covering the return value, and annotations covering safety. The description supplies the alternative-tool routing needed for correct selection. The only gap is that the relationship to the sibling `livescore_news` is not clarified, so the agent may hesitate between the two.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema's own description explains the path format (after /en/news/, copied from a link returned by livescore/news) with a concrete example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a full public LiveScore news article by its article path.' It names two siblings it is not (livescore_news_feed, livescore_news_categories), which helps disambiguate from the surrounding news tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the plain `livescore_news` sibling, leaving one adjacent tool unresolved.

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_news_feed for the home feed and livescore_news_categories for routes and publisher tools, implying this tool is for retrieving one specific article. There are no explicit 'when not to use' exclusions and no prerequisite/error conditions, but the alternative routing is clear.

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