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

The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the API key requirement and the two-hour final-game inclusion window.

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?

One sentence front-loads the resource, temporal scope, returned fields, and auth requirement with no unnecessary wording.

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?

For a simple read-only live-scores tool, the description covers the essential scope, return fields, and API key requirement. It could mention league filtering or empty-result behavior, but the schema covers the parameter and no output schema is present.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents the single league parameter, including possible values and the default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: games being played now, plus games finalized within the last two hours, with score, period, and clock. This clearly distinguishes it from fixture-listing or league-listing siblings.

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?

It implies when the tool is useful by specifying live and recently final games, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_fixtures or state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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