flashscore_competitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful scope context by stating this is 'the active feed-date inventory, not an archive of inactive or historical seasons.' But it does not address output format, empty-feed behavior, pagination, authorization, or rate limits, so transparency is only partial.

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 three short, information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating outputs and scope restrictions. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

For a simple two-parameter inventory tool, the description covers purpose, output fields, and data scope while the schema covers parameter details. It falls just short of the top tier because it does not describe the response shape in more concrete terms or provide explicit alternative-tool routing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents sport as an enum and day_offset with its range and default. The description only repeats the 'by sport and date' idea and adds no new parameter semantics, so the 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?

The description opens with 'Flashscore competitions by sport and date' and then specifies a concrete verb and resource: 'Discovers competitions present in a selected sport's score feed.' It also enumerates exactly what is returned (provider competition id, label, region, canonical path, event count) and narrows the scope to active feed-date inventory, distinguishing it from archive-style sibling tools.

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 the tool is for enumerating active competitions by sport and date, and it explicitly excludes inactive or historical seasons. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to choose this over siblings like flashscore_scores, flashscore_tournament_seasons, or livescore_competition, so the routing guidance is mostly inferential.

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