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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the profile is public and lists what the profile contains, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or freshness beyond that. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, zero waste: the purpose/scope is front-loaded, followed immediately by the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated return contents are somewhat redundant, but the description plus annotations plus schema give an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly. Only minor behavioral detail (pagination/limits) is absent.

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 single path parameter is fully documented in the schema (required, /en/ prefix, example). The description's mention of the '/en/' path largely repeats the schema, so baseline 3 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 (Fetch) and resource (LiveScore player profile) plus its scope (public, from a linked /en/ path), and enumerates the payload (team/competition, career teams, recent-match context, league summary). It names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can separate it from livescore_team/match/search without opening schemas.

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: use livescore_team to find squad links, livescore_match for a single event, livescore_search to discover players. The condition selecting each alternative is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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