flashscore_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns public entries, dates, winners 'when available', and competition paths. This is a read operation implied by 'Returns'. It doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no data is available, but for a simple calendar fetch the disclosure is adequate.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the resource ('Flashscore season calendar') and lists the key return elements. It's concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain the relationship to flashscore_calendar_categories (which provides the enum values) or flashscore_tournament_seasons, but an agent could likely call it correctly. The lack of output schema means return format is unknown, but the description lists what's included.

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 parameter 'category' has an enum with a description referencing 'flashscore-calendar-categories'. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 applies. The enum values are self-explanatory (tennis-atp, golf-pga, etc.).

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns public tournament calendar entries, dates, winners when available, and competition paths for the current season.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like flashscore_tournament_seasons or flashscore_calendar_categories, but the resource (season calendar) is distinct enough.

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?

The description implies usage context: it's for retrieving calendar data for the current season. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like flashscore_tournament_seasons or flashscore_calendar_categories. The 'current season' qualifier provides some context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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